I threw a post out onto Facebook Saying that I didn’t give a crap whether you wanted to get the Covid poke or not but let’s stop calling it a vaccine let’s call it what it really is, an experimental gene therapy, closer to chemotherapy that a vaccine, which I heard from an oncologist. Immediately after I posted that, Facebook had to put their “it’s a safe and effective disclaimer” on my comment. Fk Facebook.
Comments (22)
sorted by:
According to the CDCs website this vaccine isn’t even out of trials until 2023. So it’s not a vaccine. It’s an experiment. Also it’s only approved for emergency use which Means you cannot be forced by federal law to take it.
Yes. The ONLY reason why it's allowed to be used is because we're all in a state of emergency. No state of emergency, no "vaccine".
Via the FDA through the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/Pfizer-BioNTech.html https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download
This is the same for ALL the listed vaccines on the CDC website.
I'd also like to note that there is NO vaccine at all for any type of virus that mutates, via Dr Fauci himself: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/flu-outbreak-why-isnt-there-a-universal-vaccine/
Cant be forced to take a vaccine that has Emergency Use Authorization
https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/23/federal-law-prohibits-employers-and-others-from-requiring-vaccination-with-a-covid-19-vaccine-distributed-under-an-eua/
Know your rights. All COVID-19 Vaccine Drugs will be in Trials for 2 more years minimum.
You can’t be compelled to get one or be discriminated against for not getting one.
Don’t believe me?
When Dr. Amanda Cohn, the executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, was asked if Covid-19 vaccination can be required, she responded that under an EUA, “vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandatory.” Cohn later affirmed that this prohibition on requiring the vaccines applies to organizations, including hospitals.
A gene therapy is by definition something that intentionally alters the genome of a large number of cells to fix a genetic problem. The mRNA therapies do none of that.
It also is not technically a chemotherapy, as those are generally specific molecules that inhibit cancer specific mechanism, or kill cancer specific cells. This technology can be used to treat cancer though in a similar way to chemotherapies. Indeed I am fairly certain it began life in that field.
While I agree it is not technically a vaccine, it is close enough to it that it isn't completely wrong, and it eliminates confusion in communication. Technically it is an immunotherapy.
I do not disagree with your general sentiment, but it does no good to say "its not this" and then call it something else that it also isn't.
Except that if you go back to some of the mRNA patents in 2015 for the german company that created some of this stuff, it clearly says these mrna vaccines are gene therapy.
Well, considering I design similar tech, and gene therapies, if they do indeed say that they are incorrect.
I'm willing to bet they don't actually say that and people with insufficient knowledge are misinterpreting. Nevertheless its not impossible the patent writers made a mistake.
I can tell you with 100% certainty however, that by definition, and by those in the field, these mRNA immunotherapies are not considered gene therapies.
Let me be more specific. These mRNA immunotherapies deliver mRNA into the cytosol of a cell. The mRNA is then translated into a protein. At no time does the mRNA make it into the nucleus and interact with the DNA. Its nearly impossible for it to make it into the nucleus, and nearly impossible for it to be reverse transcribed onto the DNA. Even if it somehow managed those two separate nearly impossible tasks, it would be nearly impossible for it to be later transcribed from DNA into mRNA as it would be very unlikely to have the transcription sequences upstream to get the machinery on there to make that happen. Even if that happened it would extremely unlikely that it would be in the proper reading frame and have a termination sequence at the right place.
In other words, the odds of this happening in a single cell, using this particular technology is 4 x N, where N = nearly impossible. And that's just for one cell. To happen in multiple cells = M x 4 x N where M = multiple cells.
It would be ludicrous to use this as a "gene therapy". It's efficacy would be on the order of
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
I'm only giving it that much credit because I got bored writing zeros.
In your professional opinion, are we headed for a catastrophic event by injecting millions of people at once? If so, who would survive, the vaxxed or unvaxxed? So many conflicting theories.
I can't prognosticate with any more accuracy than anyone else. Having said that, I do not think the vaccine is overly dangerous (though it absolutely IS dangerous). By overly dangerous, I mean I do not think it will cause a depopulation level event.
The data suggests there is about a 1:20,000 chance of dying to the vaccine, and a 1:200 chance of getting a serious adverse reaction. My biggest fear on the vaccines however is the potential pathogenic priming and subsequent severe immune response that plagued all previous coronavirus vaccines.
In previous tests, on average, about 5% of the vaccine recipients died when they later encountered the real virus. Because this problem existed in other tests, not having tested that potential effect in these vaccines in animals prior to human tests constitutes a violation of the Nuremberg code and thus a crime against humanity.
Regardless of that though, if these vaccines encounter the same problem, next years "SARS season" could be brutal. Even 5% of the vaccinated is still not a population level event, but it would cause a world wide uproar. Unless they can convincingly play off such an event as "a worse virus" it would red-pill the entire world. I sincerely hope that is not the plan...
As for the other, I do not think it is likely they will release "a worse virus" to kill off the unvaccinated. In fact, I think that is HIGHLY unlikely. Though I admit that it is not impossible.
Having said that, if it did happen, they would have to use the same spike protein used in these vaccines. If they did, you could use the same defenses against that future virus since they are specific to the receptor those spike proteins attack. Those defenses are vitamin D + K + Zn, along with enough other vitamins to not be deficient (notably B, C, Mg). Both HCQ and Ivermectin would also help, but the vitamins are trivially easy to get.
Very interesting, thank you for the quick response. When you say the vaccinated recipient died when introduced to the vaccine, do you mean a second dose or just reiterating that it could be a rough flu season?
I meant the real virus. I edited it in my post, maybe it didn't stick.
Ok thank you for the helpful information. I see it has been edited now, I clicked too fast haha.
Fake book just put me in jail for 30 days due to a post I copied and pasted from Health ranger web site (his site has been banned for awhile in FB) on Ivermectin. It was an interview from a doctor.
I was told my post would harm others. LOL! It more likely would have saved their lives.
Mind to share the link here?
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons is not limited to protection from unreasonable search and seizure but is a broad, fundamental right without which there is no right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Personal security undergirds all these, and many other, dependent rights.
Don't even think about invading my person.
Don't care if the current "supreme court" might decide otherwise.
My sister finally convinced my mom to get the vaccine today despite my numerous attempts to get her to reconsider. My mom is pretty wise to what is going on but wanted to get the family to stop bothering her. My wife and I are really concerned. We fear the "vaccination" FAR more than we fear this easily controlled virus. Depressing. If peer pressure kills my mom I am going to go bezerk.
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons is not limited to protection from unreasonable search and seizure but is a broad, fundamental right without which there is no right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Personal security undergirds all these, and many other, dependent rights.
Don't even think about invading my person.
Don't care if the current "supreme court" might decide otherwise.
I only go on to red pill family. Who you kidding, government knows where all of us are...