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.
My pleasure! As per the FDA and CDC definitions, a “vaccine” must satisfy 2 main objectives:
1; it must: suppress symptoms or slow or stop infection
2; it must: slow, suppress, or stop transmission of the virus
These gene therapies offer no potential of # 2, nor do the pharma companies claim that they would. Their only claim is that there is potential for their products to allow some immunity building which may result in less severe symptoms or blocking of infection possibly.
Another key point is that they are using the argument or “Herd Immunity” as support for why everyone needs to volunteer for their costly experiment. Well, if these gene therapies offer zero protection from transmission, then the entire “Herd Immunity” argument fails. The idea with Herd Immunity is that the vaccinated population or naturally immune persons in said population, would lower the chance of infection for the unvaccinated or non-immune.... because these other folks would stop the virus within their own bodies or would slow or suppress transmission and flatten any curve or send it into a downward infection trend.
So, since these only suggest to satisfy #1, that’s why I say ~50%. There is so much public deception— even deception to the medical professionals trusting Pharma and the FDA. If these medical providers on the front lines are really as busy and lacking sleep/overworked as we are told they are.. then how can we expect that they’ve had the time to dig deep into the leer-reviewed papers of the historic mRNA “vaccine” animal research, or look at all the recent data and do the heavy lifting of scientific research. If they did, they’d see that most of the recent published papers that look favorable for mRNA technology for use as vaccines, are written by the employees of Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTECH, or hold pending or active patents for mRNA tech that can be used in the same way Moderna/P&B/ J&J et. al, are using it.
As for the pathogen creation:: yes. That is how the hypothetical immune training is supposed to occur.
Tiny Lipid envelopes (nanotechnology size: 350-550 nanometers) filled with mRNA codon strands are injected into the body- usually IM or into the muscle. From there they will enter the blood stream and travel all over the body— brain, heart, liver, muscles, etc. Again, these are so small and being lipid, can get through cellular structure walls easily. Once these adhere to a cell, are then taken up by the cell. Once inside, the mRNA strand will be seen by the ribosome and will be used as a “recipe” that will have the cell express a spike protein pathogen. The reason the spike protein is chosen is because that’s how he Cov19 virus gets access to our cells so quickly. The Spike protein is like a hand and our ACE-2 receptors are like a doorknob. So, our cells express (make) this spike protein and attach it to themselves. Basically making themselves decoys for the immune systems The immune system will recognize these spike proteins as pathogens that shouldn’t be in the body, and will launch at attack against them. They will then be on the hunt for any spike proteins found. The intent is that this would include any found on real Covid19 viral bodies if infected. The immune system should have made antibodies for the spike protein, and should hypothetically recognize them in the future- even if they aren’t on your cells but on a virus. This is where things can and have gone very wrong historically. The success rate metric that pharma is claiming is based on the positive outcome of getting cells to express these proteins and possibly for the presence of antibodies to those proteins. It is not a metric of how well these gene therapies effectively aided in suppression of symptoms or stopping of infection and certainly can’t be for anything related to transmission. I’ll state again: they can’t show data for efficacy of these in protection from infection or suppressing of symptoms because those tests have never been done. With social distancing mask wearing guidelines, etc.. it will be longer before we see that many vaccinated come into contact with the wild Covid-19 virus where the real “dice roll” happens. Covid 19 deaths or viral presence is tested using PCR tests with primers looking for Spike proteins. What does a vaccinated person have in their blood for weeks and likely months after vaccination?? Spike proteins.. So the likelihood of vaccine deaths as being reported as Covid-19 deaths is extremely high. In fact, you’d have to prove that someone wasn’t possibly infected with Covid-19 to show that the Spike protein waste material in their PCR test results was not from an actual Covid-19 infection. Since the Cares act allows 20% more payout to providers for diagnosis of a Covid-19 death—— why would you suggest and report otherwise when it will cost you 20% and your practice or clinic or hospital is already bleeding out and has been since last March?? Conflicts abound here.
This is likely to turn into some Hague-level shit if it already isn’t headed in that direction. Spread the word. I’ll see if I can get a root-post going. I’ve been following along on this site for quite a while, but I’m admittedly new to posting. In fact, my reply to you was my first post. I felt it would be important enough to get you that info that I started an account just to make sure you had current information.
As an aside: my own independent research and analysis of data led me to this conclusion before I had even heard of Dr Gold, or any of the many many other Doctors and scientists I’m now finding as having conclusions aligned with my own.
As per the FDA and CDC definitions, a “vaccine” must satisfy 2 main objectives
I must say, I would certainly consider those vague enough that I could see the pharmas getting away with it in court. But, by those guidelines, even as vague as they are, I agree with you.
Their only claim is that there is potential for their products to allow some immunity building which may result in less severe symptoms or blocking of infection possibly.
Hm. I think that "blocking of infection possibly" does "possibly" satisfy point 2. Even if infection severity is reduced, that would slow the spread by reducing the number of virus particles that infected person exhales into the environment. Although that's contingent on proving that lower severity means lower infectiousness, which they've gone to great lengths to convince the whole world is not true... Then again, nothing stopping them from telling one lie on the news and a whole other pile of different lies and half truths in court, whichever is convenient for them at the moment.
As for the pathogen creation:: yes... the mRNA strand will be seen by the ribosome and will be used as a “recipe” that will have the cell express a spike protein pathogen.
I'm genuinely fucking floored. I've seen and read dozens of articles about these vaccines and the mRNA vaccine tech, and never seen it mentioned that the mRNA is coding the spike protein rather than coding the antibodies directly. I'll have to read more carefully from here and see how they are wording it to figure out what the game is, how they're generating the false impression that the mRNA is for the antibodies. Perhaps I was just making the classic mistake of naively projecting good intentions and sanity, following the golden rule.
Anyway, my flabbergasting aside, so if there is now virus mRNA in the body generating spike proteins, how long can that mRNA be expected to cause spike proteins to be generated? I've seen reports that the mRNA vaccine may cause permanent autoimmune issues resulting in infertility in women, which now that I hear the mRNA is making virus spikes, makes a lot of sense. But, it is -messenger-RNA after all, shouldn't it have a pretty short effect? They're generally single use molecules, aren't they? Or am I misremembering biology? (I know I could look all this up, but in the interest of playing your foil so you know what questions you might want to address if you make a full post I figured I'll just blurt it out.)
the likelihood of vaccine deaths as being reported as Covid-19 deaths is extremely high... Conflicts abound
Yeah they sure do. There have already been many posts linking a "covid death surge" happening 2 weeks after wide scale vaccine administration began in many places. A lot of people here, myself included, suspect the vaccine to be significantly more deadly than the virus itself, especially since the virus is not particularly deadly.
I felt it would be important enough to get you that info that I started an account just to make sure you had current information.
Man I appreciate it, but I'm just one random moron, lol- there are tens of thousands of us here that need this info which you know much better than we do. For it to spread, you should definitely write a larger and more in depth post. We need those tens of thousands to talk to the millions in their sphere of communication. I'll do my part of course- gonna go research what you said and send all that to my friends and family.
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.
Any incorrectness in germ theory or understanding of viruses is a bit immaterial to whether a particular concoction injected into the body causes the recipient to be less likely to contract a particular disease. Certainly, traditional vaccines are produced in such a way that perfect understanding is not strictly necessary, but if mRNA "vaccines" can be relied upon to confer 95% infection reduction then "immunity" is occurring somehow. I think it is a bit silly to suggest that they do not have a workable understanding if they can induce antibody production with mRNA injections.
That said, my anti-vaccine argument in no way whatsoever takes issue with germ theory. As far as I can see, vaccines are -individually- effective at their intended effect. The problem is that the adjuvants, a critical component to force immune response to a non-threat, the deactivated viruses, cause cumulative epigenetic dysfunction and genetic damage. There is no way to avoid the use of adjuvants in traditional vaccines, and thus vaccines are bad medicine. mRNA vaccines do not have this particular flaw, and that is a significant reason that their development has been pursued by the medicos. However, so far it appears that they have alternate flaws just as destructive.
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.
My pleasure! As per the FDA and CDC definitions, a “vaccine” must satisfy 2 main objectives:
1; it must: suppress symptoms or slow or stop infection
2; it must: slow, suppress, or stop transmission of the virus
These gene therapies offer no potential of # 2, nor do the pharma companies claim that they would. Their only claim is that there is potential for their products to allow some immunity building which may result in less severe symptoms or blocking of infection possibly.
Another key point is that they are using the argument or “Herd Immunity” as support for why everyone needs to volunteer for their costly experiment. Well, if these gene therapies offer zero protection from transmission, then the entire “Herd Immunity” argument fails. The idea with Herd Immunity is that the vaccinated population or naturally immune persons in said population, would lower the chance of infection for the unvaccinated or non-immune.... because these other folks would stop the virus within their own bodies or would slow or suppress transmission and flatten any curve or send it into a downward infection trend.
So, since these only suggest to satisfy #1, that’s why I say ~50%. There is so much public deception— even deception to the medical professionals trusting Pharma and the FDA. If these medical providers on the front lines are really as busy and lacking sleep/overworked as we are told they are.. then how can we expect that they’ve had the time to dig deep into the leer-reviewed papers of the historic mRNA “vaccine” animal research, or look at all the recent data and do the heavy lifting of scientific research. If they did, they’d see that most of the recent published papers that look favorable for mRNA technology for use as vaccines, are written by the employees of Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTECH, or hold pending or active patents for mRNA tech that can be used in the same way Moderna/P&B/ J&J et. al, are using it.
As for the pathogen creation:: yes. That is how the hypothetical immune training is supposed to occur.
Tiny Lipid envelopes (nanotechnology size: 350-550 nanometers) filled with mRNA codon strands are injected into the body- usually IM or into the muscle. From there they will enter the blood stream and travel all over the body— brain, heart, liver, muscles, etc. Again, these are so small and being lipid, can get through cellular structure walls easily. Once these adhere to a cell, are then taken up by the cell. Once inside, the mRNA strand will be seen by the ribosome and will be used as a “recipe” that will have the cell express a spike protein pathogen. The reason the spike protein is chosen is because that’s how he Cov19 virus gets access to our cells so quickly. The Spike protein is like a hand and our ACE-2 receptors are like a doorknob. So, our cells express (make) this spike protein and attach it to themselves. Basically making themselves decoys for the immune systems The immune system will recognize these spike proteins as pathogens that shouldn’t be in the body, and will launch at attack against them. They will then be on the hunt for any spike proteins found. The intent is that this would include any found on real Covid19 viral bodies if infected. The immune system should have made antibodies for the spike protein, and should hypothetically recognize them in the future- even if they aren’t on your cells but on a virus. This is where things can and have gone very wrong historically. The success rate metric that pharma is claiming is based on the positive outcome of getting cells to express these proteins and possibly for the presence of antibodies to those proteins. It is not a metric of how well these gene therapies effectively aided in suppression of symptoms or stopping of infection and certainly can’t be for anything related to transmission. I’ll state again: they can’t show data for efficacy of these in protection from infection or suppressing of symptoms because those tests have never been done. With social distancing mask wearing guidelines, etc.. it will be longer before we see that many vaccinated come into contact with the wild Covid-19 virus where the real “dice roll” happens. Covid 19 deaths or viral presence is tested using PCR tests with primers looking for Spike proteins. What does a vaccinated person have in their blood for weeks and likely months after vaccination?? Spike proteins.. So the likelihood of vaccine deaths as being reported as Covid-19 deaths is extremely high. In fact, you’d have to prove that someone wasn’t possibly infected with Covid-19 to show that the Spike protein waste material in their PCR test results was not from an actual Covid-19 infection. Since the Cares act allows 20% more payout to providers for diagnosis of a Covid-19 death—— why would you suggest and report otherwise when it will cost you 20% and your practice or clinic or hospital is already bleeding out and has been since last March?? Conflicts abound here.
This is likely to turn into some Hague-level shit if it already isn’t headed in that direction. Spread the word. I’ll see if I can get a root-post going. I’ve been following along on this site for quite a while, but I’m admittedly new to posting. In fact, my reply to you was my first post. I felt it would be important enough to get you that info that I started an account just to make sure you had current information.
As an aside: my own independent research and analysis of data led me to this conclusion before I had even heard of Dr Gold, or any of the many many other Doctors and scientists I’m now finding as having conclusions aligned with my own.
I must say, I would certainly consider those vague enough that I could see the pharmas getting away with it in court. But, by those guidelines, even as vague as they are, I agree with you.
Hm. I think that "blocking of infection possibly" does "possibly" satisfy point 2. Even if infection severity is reduced, that would slow the spread by reducing the number of virus particles that infected person exhales into the environment. Although that's contingent on proving that lower severity means lower infectiousness, which they've gone to great lengths to convince the whole world is not true... Then again, nothing stopping them from telling one lie on the news and a whole other pile of different lies and half truths in court, whichever is convenient for them at the moment.
I'm genuinely fucking floored. I've seen and read dozens of articles about these vaccines and the mRNA vaccine tech, and never seen it mentioned that the mRNA is coding the spike protein rather than coding the antibodies directly. I'll have to read more carefully from here and see how they are wording it to figure out what the game is, how they're generating the false impression that the mRNA is for the antibodies. Perhaps I was just making the classic mistake of naively projecting good intentions and sanity, following the golden rule.
Anyway, my flabbergasting aside, so if there is now virus mRNA in the body generating spike proteins, how long can that mRNA be expected to cause spike proteins to be generated? I've seen reports that the mRNA vaccine may cause permanent autoimmune issues resulting in infertility in women, which now that I hear the mRNA is making virus spikes, makes a lot of sense. But, it is -messenger-RNA after all, shouldn't it have a pretty short effect? They're generally single use molecules, aren't they? Or am I misremembering biology? (I know I could look all this up, but in the interest of playing your foil so you know what questions you might want to address if you make a full post I figured I'll just blurt it out.)
Yeah they sure do. There have already been many posts linking a "covid death surge" happening 2 weeks after wide scale vaccine administration began in many places. A lot of people here, myself included, suspect the vaccine to be significantly more deadly than the virus itself, especially since the virus is not particularly deadly.
Man I appreciate it, but I'm just one random moron, lol- there are tens of thousands of us here that need this info which you know much better than we do. For it to spread, you should definitely write a larger and more in depth post. We need those tens of thousands to talk to the millions in their sphere of communication. I'll do my part of course- gonna go research what you said and send all that to my friends and family.
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.
Any incorrectness in germ theory or understanding of viruses is a bit immaterial to whether a particular concoction injected into the body causes the recipient to be less likely to contract a particular disease. Certainly, traditional vaccines are produced in such a way that perfect understanding is not strictly necessary, but if mRNA "vaccines" can be relied upon to confer 95% infection reduction then "immunity" is occurring somehow. I think it is a bit silly to suggest that they do not have a workable understanding if they can induce antibody production with mRNA injections.
That said, my anti-vaccine argument in no way whatsoever takes issue with germ theory. As far as I can see, vaccines are -individually- effective at their intended effect. The problem is that the adjuvants, a critical component to force immune response to a non-threat, the deactivated viruses, cause cumulative epigenetic dysfunction and genetic damage. There is no way to avoid the use of adjuvants in traditional vaccines, and thus vaccines are bad medicine. mRNA vaccines do not have this particular flaw, and that is a significant reason that their development has been pursued by the medicos. However, so far it appears that they have alternate flaws just as destructive.