Could President Trump be advocating the vaccine because it will protect us against something the DS wants to release upon us? I don't really believe this, but I can't think of another reason Trump would push the vaccine so hard.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (34)
sorted by:
Upon initial inspection this uses a virus (Ad26) that has had the genes for replication removed (when it infects a cell, unlike any normal adenovirus it cannot create more of itself). This base Ad26 is used as a vaccine template, expressing certain surface proteins to mimic the virus or bacteria it is intended to induce an immune response for. In this case it has been modified to express the sars-cov-2 spike proteins on the surface AKA a real vaccine.
The rest of the ingredients are innocuous with the exception of 2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin. I do not know the use for this molecule, but upon initial inspection my guess is this is used to stabilize the viral vectors in the vaccine solution. By itself it has been explored as an anti-cancer agent for certain cancer types and seems to be safe, though further study is required on my part.
From what I have read so far, the clinical trials did not cause any extreme symptoms (e.g. no anaphylactic shock, blindness, paralysis, death, etc. unlike certain other immunotherapies that shall not be named). It did cause a lot of headaches, fevers, etc, but all mild, and all standard for a real vaccine.
I will be looking into this further, including reading all the submitted paperwork and looking for real data on it (if it can be found). My initial response is hopeful for this one, but that really doesn't mean much if the real data ends up being hidden like the last vaccines.
Please keep us informed of your research!
I would suggest going to Children's Health Defense, Robert Kennedy's group. They have strong research there.
I use them as resources sometimes, as a guide on where to look, and where others have looked and because sometimes they have good sources, but I am a research scientist in the field. I prefer finding my own scientific sources. It's a lot harder to lie with, or misunderstand a scientific publication. I'm not saying that doesn't happen, but its easy to spot if it does by anyone who knows what they are doing.
Understand. I have found that I don't trust scientific publications because they have been politicized, sometimes to the extreme and definitely during the pandemic. I also should admit I don't always understand the research, though I'm marginally in the field. I believe most of our medical sources are compromised to advance the DS agenda.
There is a big difference between what is in the Discussion section (sometimes mirrored in the Abstract and Introduction) and what is in the actual data and science sections, graphs, etc. That is where the real information is. The other sections are often riddled with bias, but then again, that's really easy to spot for anyone who has read thousands of such papers and performed the same or similar experiments.
For anyone who doesn't have that experience you can still glean good information from the abstracts and/or discussion. Its just really important to keep your bias alarm on a feather switch. If you do that, you can extract the real from the bias.
I highly recommend not skipping the science papers. If you do find bias, even if you can extract nothing real or useful out of it, it gives you good information on the specific directions of the disinformation campaigns.
Another reason to not skip them is you can find the biases in the original media that links to the science. Very often the science paper directly contradicts what the media reports it as. That is also extremely useful for getting to the bigger picture.