mRNA Vaccine and Blood Brain Barrier

[SPUTTER]

Takes years, not months to acquire safety data. Remember 10+ years!

[anthonyca]

When asked if I am vaccinated I tell people no, because I want to see long term studies of the mRNA vaccines. Vaccines usually take 10 years for approval and that is with traditional vaccines, not this that has never been approved. I've done a lot of research and don't feel I am at risk of dying from covid. Do I want it, no.

The people pushing the vaccine often then go straight toni could have had covid or could get and be a long hauler because we don't know enough and covid is too new to know. I then ask about the vaccine that is newer than covid and they say that we have enough evidence that it is safe.

I'm not 100% sure either way other than I don't want to be in a phase 3 clinical study of which the vaccines are currently in.

[Tere_Hanges]

Its only a matter of time before both Moderna and Pfizer receive full FDA approval. All these tin foil threads will not age well.

Just like all the threads where people swore up and down about Trump not leaving the WH after the election. That somehow everything that went against him was actually part of a genius plan that would ensure he stayed in office.

[Sgt. J Beezy]

mRNA Vaccine and Blood Brain Barrier

Don't believe I said you couldn't catch the virus. No vaccine prevents you from catching the associated virus, unless you believe in magic force fields I guess. They prevent illness, as this one does for Covid-19, and most likely subsequent transmission. There's a literal use of words - like a 3 year old, or a Covid meme - and there's clinical use in context. You can't talk vaccines without understanding the difference.



Finally something you can sink your teeth into. You substantially misrepresent the safety data even at time of approval for the Pfizer vaccine, and ignore that a similar amount was available for the essentially identical Moderna. 40,000 is a very large sample size. They waited until they had an average of 2 months at approval, did not call it good, and that's now more than 6 months, not to mention the millions (tens of millions? hundreds?) who have since gotten those vaccines, and are 0-6 months in.



VAERS is a voluntary reporting system with no requirement for clinical assessment before logging, and you know what that means to a motivated participant. Now as I recall, it's important to know if those were deaths with vaccine, or from vaccine? Any motorcycle accidents in there? Any late night Dominion entries? Russian or Chinese psyops? In time, those reported deaths should be sorted out to some degree.



At any rate, you have to pick your poison. Is there an opt-out of the choice? If you think the risk of death, disability, or future problem from injection of a minor amount of labile chemical in one arm muscle, once or twice, is a bigger bogeyman than the infection risk and consequences of Covid-19, that's the choice. At 600,000 deaths +/-, and a lot of unexposed higher risk people left to die, I'm not surprised at the choice many have made to be vaccinated. I wonder how many in India are advocating rolling the dice because Pfizer has liability immunity (if they do)? If I were healthy and 20 or 30 years old and willing to do what it took not to pass it along to anyone more at risk of harm (not at all easy to guard against that), I might think twice, or more likely just wait awhile longer before deciding. As it is, I waited three months beyond eligibility to get mine, because I wanted more safety data.

[stonefly-2]

Its only a matter of time before both Moderna and Pfizer receive full FDA approval. All these tin foil threads will not age well.

Just like all the threads where people swore up and down about Trump not leaving the WH after the election. That somehow everything that went against him was actually part of a genius plan that would ensure he stayed in office.

The "time" is 10 years plus or it's another shortcut.

[SPUTTER]

The "time" is 10 years plus or it's another shortcut.

That's what they'll do, get an approval on a novel vaccine in record time with "ongoing" studies.

[freespool]

Nice Strawman against my argument.

No one said you said you couldn’t catch the virus so... why say it?

Also, why “unless you believe in magic force fields”

Your dismissal of me does not address my questions. It just points out the fact that you don’t like the answers to my simple questions. They don’t “fit” your narrative.

Lastly,

“If you think the risk of death, disability, or future problem from injection of a minor amount of labile chemical in one arm muscle, once or twice, is a bigger bogeyman than the infection risk and consequences of Covid-19, that's the choice.”

You just admitted that you can catch the Rona even after “vaccinated” so why don’t you have to worry about the “consequences of Covid-19”?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I have no idea what point you are making. You asked why I continue to say the vaccine protects against infection (#71), which I never did, then I repeated that I never did and why it couldn't (no magic force fields from vaccination), and then you said no one ever said I did make the claim, when you yourself said I did (#71). Are you high? Make some sense with your statements if you want a pertinent response.

If you don't already know the answer to your last sentence, you really are as ignorant of this topic as your other comments show. (Hint, it's the same rationale as for every single muther****in vaccine that's ever been). Illness vs sub-clinical infection, Einstein.

[Sgt. J Beezy]

I have no idea what point you are making. You asked why I continue to say the vaccine protects against infection (#71), which I never did, then I repeated that I never did and why it couldn't (no magic force fields from vaccination), and then you said no one ever said I did make the claim, when you yourself said I did (#71). Are you high? Make some sense with your statements if you want a pertinent response.

If you don't already know the answer to your last sentence, you really are as ignorant of this topic as your other comments show. (Hint, it's the same rationale as for every single muther****in vaccine that's ever been). Illness vs sub-clinical infection, Einstein.

So the one question that has any relevance to the topic is the one you decide to pass on?

Just when it was getting good too.

Pathetic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[freespool]

So the one question that has any relevance to the topic is the one you decide to pass on?

Just when it was getting good too.

Pathetic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I didn't pass on any questions.

[Sgt. J Beezy]

I didn't pass on any questions.

[bigbossman]

Just so we are clear.

Get the experimental, emergency authorized mRNA vaccine to lessen the impact The Chinese Virus has. But, you can still catch the Chinese Virus. You can still pass it to others.

Since you can still catch the Chinese Virus, you still have to worry about the long term effects from the Chinese Virus AND the long term effects from the vaccine, correct?

And all this is for a virus with a 99.5% survival rate. Correct?

Correct. Seems like a pretty reasonable synopsis to me.

[Sgt. J Beezy]

Correct. Seems like a pretty reasonable synopsis to me.

I thought so.

Guess we will find out though.

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[freespool]

More likely you're just deliberately obtuse. But that's just my inexpert opinion.

When you drink whisky, do you figure "shot or whole bottle, what's the difference?" Same with gunshots? One or 10, what's the difference? .22LR ( partial spike alone -what the vaccine has) or .50 cal (full spike + the rest of the virus), what's the difference?

Do you treat everything categorically, or does balancing risks figure in?


It's not semantics, it's the clinical reality. Dose, and quality of dose, matter. I pretty much all things medical. It's true you have to start with the fact that vaccines are given to healthy people, so you have to decide if the vaccine risk outweighs the risk of catching SARS CoV2 and being harmed by it.

Do you know how the odds of vaccine harm stack up against the odds of Covid harm, not just death, for your age group? That would be rational.

You need sources for that? Is dose-dependence once again a concept that trips you up? Do you think spike is the only harmful thing the virus does?

I haven't advocated for it, but you advocate against it, without knowing much of anything about the subject. How much of your life would you say is NOT experimental? How much checking do you do for anything else? Not much at all, I'd bet.

I'm fine with that. How many of that 600,000 shouldn't count, and why?Not sure what this question is asking, but I think we're back to the challenge you have because you view things categorically, rather than as by degree. Do you want a lot of Covid, or just a little. One bullet or 10?

Just so we are clear.

Get the experimental, emergency authorized mRNA vaccine to lessen the impact The Chinese Virus has. But, you can still catch the Chinese Virus. You can still pass it to others.

Nope, can't (likely) catch it (clinically speaking), won't (likely pass it).

Since you can still catch the Chinese Virus, you still have to worry about the long term effects from the Chinese Virus AND the long term effects from the vaccine, correct?

And all this is for a virus with a 99.5% survival rate. Correct?

You don't have a whole lot to go on here, do you? Have a cookie.

[Sgt. J Beezy]

More likely you're just deliberately obtuse. But that's just my inexpert opinion.



When you drink whisky, do you figure "shot or whole bottle, what's the difference?" Same with gunshots? One or 10, what's the difference? .22LR ( partial spike alone -what the vaccine has) or .50 cal (full spike + the rest of the virus), what's the difference?



Do you treat everything categorically, or does balancing risks figure in?





It's not semantics, it's the clinical reality. Dose, and quality of dose, matter. I pretty much all things medical. It's true you have to start with the fact that vaccines are given to healthy people, so you have to decide if the vaccine risk outweighs the risk of catching SARS CoV2 and being harmed by it.



Do you know how the odds of vaccine harm stack up against the odds of Covid harm, not just death, for your age group? That would be rational.



You need sources for that? Is dose-dependence once again a concept that trips you up? Do you think spike is the only harmful thing the virus does?



I haven't advocated for it, but you advocate against it, without knowing much of anything about the subject. How much of your life would you say is NOT experimental? How much checking do you do for anything else? Not much at all, I'd bet.



I'm fine with that. How many of that 600,000 shouldn't count, and why?Not sure what this question is asking, but I think we're back to the challenge you have because you view things categorically, rather than as by degree. Do you want a lot of Covid, or just a little. One bullet or 10? Nope, can't (likely) catch it (clinically speaking), won't (likely pass it). You don't have a whole lot to go on here, do you? Have a cookie.

[freespool]

Thanks for continuing to showcase your subject-matter ignorance, lack of reading comprehension, and inability to grasp basic concepts. I'm surprised it doesn't embarrass you more, it makes me feel mean. I figured you were joking about being retarded, sorry. You may not have any self respect, but I won't exploit it any longer.