We can't, and we shouldn't. They changed the definition of vaccine a long time ago to include newer technologies that have the same effect, but are (ostensibly) safer than traditional vaccines. But, traditional vaccines are just as dangerous and should be avoided as much as the new ones, perhaps even more dangerous. We should not shy away from calling these mRNA therapies vaccines because the damage they do should fairly also be associated with traditional vaccines. Vaccines are a calculus of lesser harm, and the notion that we just keep giving more and more vaccines for less and less dangerous or common diseases, causing vaccine injury that far surpasses the damage those diseases did to society in the first place, is a horrifically psychotic medical practice. Vaccines are bad medicine, avoiding calling these new therapies vaccines is just pretending that it is that they are not traditional vaccines that makes them dangerous, and that's simply the opposite of the truth. Traditional vaccines are every bit as dangerous.
The regulatory guidelines already accept them legally as vaccines. I think the proper course of action is not to prevent mRNA therapy from being accepted as vaccines, but to prevent ALL vaccines from being allowed to bypass normal medical safety requirements. But, even that is a bit pointless, the regulatory agencies are in the hands of the enemy after all. We must spread the truth among our fellow man ourselves that vaccines are unsafe, and that mRNA therapies, whether they are vaccines or not, are also unsafe.
Actually- they do not. The mRNA gene therapies only allegedly satisfy ~50% of the definition as specifically set forth by the FDA and CDC. This is why you will see a disclaimer by the FDA after the pharma company uses the word “vaccine” in their product name. This is also why we hear the FDA and others referring to these products as vaccines. That is the target for pharma. This also explains how a “vaccine” could bypass 5 years of double blind panel testing and have zero testing involvement by the FDA. You can read this clearly for yourself if going to the FDA website. If you happen to also read page 9 of the 57 page “EUA Decision” document: you’ll see that these are unfinished phase 3 tests and this is an ongoing study. There were no completed phase 4 animal tests or human tests. Phase 4 is where the vaccinated are challenged with wild virus type. This is when things have shown to go very badly for mRNA vaccinated individuals in all prior COMPLETED phase 4 testing with animals. This is also why the FDA has never allowed mRNA gene therapy to be used as a vaccine. MRNA has successfully been used, over the last 10 years or so, for expressing Peptides and other protein tertiary and quaternary structures used for cancer therapies and other protocols. However (and this is the main difference and large cause of concern), none of those expressed proteins code for a pathogen that induces your immune system to attack your own cells as they produce said proteins— in this case, a truncated inert spike protein. It is this distinguishing fact that must be focused on when the counter argument comes in that mRNA has been used successfully for ~10 years. That would be the equivalent of saying that Hydrogen Peroxide has been used safely for decades for: cleaning of teeth, topical would sanitation, and other uses proven safe. Then someone suggests that we should use it for a colon cleanse. You can guess what happens if you drank a bottle of hydrogen peroxide as a colon cleanse. Now, you won’t know if the H2O2 will kill you unless you drink it.. Phase 4 would be drinking the Hydrogen Peroxide.. And tons of doctors and research scientists know from prior completed phase 4 testing on animals— that this won’t end well for those animals. So, the arguments being used by media doctors and others defy logic on many many levels, and they offer many red-herring points in their flawed logic fueled attempts to counter the points being exacted by the concerned Doctors/researchers/etc.
It should not be surprising to hear that both Moderna and BioNTECH are companies whose focus has been on mRNA gene therapy products for those “friendly” Peptide and protein structures. Nor might it be surprising to hear that neither of them have ever produced a vaccine of any type, let alone an mRNA vaccine. BioNTECH was started in 2008 and after a big big injection of cash by the Gates foundation, stock for public trading was offered. That’s just an anecdotal tidbit of info.
The public is being coerced by peer pressure, and/or their employers and society and/or under duress that they might not be able to freely travel— that they should get these gene therapies cleverly named with that “vaccine” word so as to psychologically reinforce that these are somehow related to the 3 conventional types we’ve been used to our whole lives. This is an ongoing experiment and isn’t widely regarded that way on purpose, but that is what it is and it’s in the documentation. But who is going to read a 57 page “decision” document. Well, this scientist is- because that’s what we do and why we have academic standards and protocols for sharing and validation of data and conclusions. I’ll post a couple screenshots of the current FDA page with outlined info of keen interest- if I can here. Otherwise- anyone can go find this information if they are willing to look.
That's really great info, I appreciate you replying to me with it. Can you expand on the mRNA therapies only fitting half the definition? As in, what is the definition and what do they fit and what do they not? I was under the impression that the definition was changed to be plenty vague enough decades ago. Is it just that they haven't passed the medical trials yet so they aren't -yet- legally vaccines?
I know very well that these mRNA "vaccines" are a poison pill, they were very lethal in animal testing, and cause a huge variety of crazy side effects. Your explanation that it is forcing the body to replicate a substance that the immune system must attack makes a lot of sense, but I thought they were supposed to be replicating the antibodies directly? Are they actually replicating the spike proteins? That sounds so bonkers insane I can only imagine that would be done with intent to commit mass murder.
If you have a good info on this I think you should make a full root level post so as many people see it as possible instead of just me lol.
That's a harder claim to make and be able to prove. Despite that vaccines have destroyed the health of the whole world, each individual vaccine generally confers reduced likelihood of contracting its opposing disease. All vaccines are asked to do is to proffer that benefit and not kill the subject within a few weeks and they are considered safe. In that sense, they are "effective" in the limited, deceptive definition they've decreed they shall live up to. The problem is that the innumerable vaccines administered have cumulative side effects, and even genetically permanent side effects. The root problem is not that the vaccines do not do what they claim, but that in combination they are radically more dangerous and destructive to health than the diseases they prevent. Especially since we have many new powerful anti-bacterial and anti-viral drugs that can "cure" those diseases in the low probability chance that someone contracts them, it is preposterous to accept the side effects of dozens of vaccines for every member of the population when we can instead treat only those who actually get sick. I've had pretty good success converting people to be vaccine-skeptical with that line of reasoning. Ultimately, it doesn't take a hard line that vaccines don't work, or that science is all lies, and instead accepts the premise and works despite it.
We can't, and we shouldn't. They changed the definition of vaccine a long time ago to include newer technologies that have the same effect, but are (ostensibly) safer than traditional vaccines. But, traditional vaccines are just as dangerous and should be avoided as much as the new ones, perhaps even more dangerous. We should not shy away from calling these mRNA therapies vaccines because the damage they do should fairly also be associated with traditional vaccines. Vaccines are a calculus of lesser harm, and the notion that we just keep giving more and more vaccines for less and less dangerous or common diseases, causing vaccine injury that far surpasses the damage those diseases did to society in the first place, is a horrifically psychotic medical practice. Vaccines are bad medicine, avoiding calling these new therapies vaccines is just pretending that it is that they are not traditional vaccines that makes them dangerous, and that's simply the opposite of the truth. Traditional vaccines are every bit as dangerous.
The regulatory guidelines already accept them legally as vaccines. I think the proper course of action is not to prevent mRNA therapy from being accepted as vaccines, but to prevent ALL vaccines from being allowed to bypass normal medical safety requirements. But, even that is a bit pointless, the regulatory agencies are in the hands of the enemy after all. We must spread the truth among our fellow man ourselves that vaccines are unsafe, and that mRNA therapies, whether they are vaccines or not, are also unsafe.
Actually- they do not. The mRNA gene therapies only allegedly satisfy ~50% of the definition as specifically set forth by the FDA and CDC. This is why you will see a disclaimer by the FDA after the pharma company uses the word “vaccine” in their product name. This is also why we hear the FDA and others referring to these products as vaccines. That is the target for pharma. This also explains how a “vaccine” could bypass 5 years of double blind panel testing and have zero testing involvement by the FDA. You can read this clearly for yourself if going to the FDA website. If you happen to also read page 9 of the 57 page “EUA Decision” document: you’ll see that these are unfinished phase 3 tests and this is an ongoing study. There were no completed phase 4 animal tests or human tests. Phase 4 is where the vaccinated are challenged with wild virus type. This is when things have shown to go very badly for mRNA vaccinated individuals in all prior COMPLETED phase 4 testing with animals. This is also why the FDA has never allowed mRNA gene therapy to be used as a vaccine. MRNA has successfully been used, over the last 10 years or so, for expressing Peptides and other protein tertiary and quaternary structures used for cancer therapies and other protocols. However (and this is the main difference and large cause of concern), none of those expressed proteins code for a pathogen that induces your immune system to attack your own cells as they produce said proteins— in this case, a truncated inert spike protein. It is this distinguishing fact that must be focused on when the counter argument comes in that mRNA has been used successfully for ~10 years. That would be the equivalent of saying that Hydrogen Peroxide has been used safely for decades for: cleaning of teeth, topical would sanitation, and other uses proven safe. Then someone suggests that we should use it for a colon cleanse. You can guess what happens if you drank a bottle of hydrogen peroxide as a colon cleanse. Now, you won’t know if the H2O2 will kill you unless you drink it.. Phase 4 would be drinking the Hydrogen Peroxide.. And tons of doctors and research scientists know from prior completed phase 4 testing on animals— that this won’t end well for those animals. So, the arguments being used by media doctors and others defy logic on many many levels, and they offer many red-herring points in their flawed logic fueled attempts to counter the points being exacted by the concerned Doctors/researchers/etc.
It should not be surprising to hear that both Moderna and BioNTECH are companies whose focus has been on mRNA gene therapy products for those “friendly” Peptide and protein structures. Nor might it be surprising to hear that neither of them have ever produced a vaccine of any type, let alone an mRNA vaccine. BioNTECH was started in 2008 and after a big big injection of cash by the Gates foundation, stock for public trading was offered. That’s just an anecdotal tidbit of info.
The public is being coerced by peer pressure, and/or their employers and society and/or under duress that they might not be able to freely travel— that they should get these gene therapies cleverly named with that “vaccine” word so as to psychologically reinforce that these are somehow related to the 3 conventional types we’ve been used to our whole lives. This is an ongoing experiment and isn’t widely regarded that way on purpose, but that is what it is and it’s in the documentation. But who is going to read a 57 page “decision” document. Well, this scientist is- because that’s what we do and why we have academic standards and protocols for sharing and validation of data and conclusions. I’ll post a couple screenshots of the current FDA page with outlined info of keen interest- if I can here. Otherwise- anyone can go find this information if they are willing to look.
That's really great info, I appreciate you replying to me with it. Can you expand on the mRNA therapies only fitting half the definition? As in, what is the definition and what do they fit and what do they not? I was under the impression that the definition was changed to be plenty vague enough decades ago. Is it just that they haven't passed the medical trials yet so they aren't -yet- legally vaccines?
I know very well that these mRNA "vaccines" are a poison pill, they were very lethal in animal testing, and cause a huge variety of crazy side effects. Your explanation that it is forcing the body to replicate a substance that the immune system must attack makes a lot of sense, but I thought they were supposed to be replicating the antibodies directly? Are they actually replicating the spike proteins? That sounds so bonkers insane I can only imagine that would be done with intent to commit mass murder.
If you have a good info on this I think you should make a full root level post so as many people see it as possible instead of just me lol.
That's a harder claim to make and be able to prove. Despite that vaccines have destroyed the health of the whole world, each individual vaccine generally confers reduced likelihood of contracting its opposing disease. All vaccines are asked to do is to proffer that benefit and not kill the subject within a few weeks and they are considered safe. In that sense, they are "effective" in the limited, deceptive definition they've decreed they shall live up to. The problem is that the innumerable vaccines administered have cumulative side effects, and even genetically permanent side effects. The root problem is not that the vaccines do not do what they claim, but that in combination they are radically more dangerous and destructive to health than the diseases they prevent. Especially since we have many new powerful anti-bacterial and anti-viral drugs that can "cure" those diseases in the low probability chance that someone contracts them, it is preposterous to accept the side effects of dozens of vaccines for every member of the population when we can instead treat only those who actually get sick. I've had pretty good success converting people to be vaccine-skeptical with that line of reasoning. Ultimately, it doesn't take a hard line that vaccines don't work, or that science is all lies, and instead accepts the premise and works despite it.