Non vaxers
So all you you sheep are you convinced that us who refused the fake vaccine were right
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Curiosity13 · 51-55, M
I still do not consider these COVID shots vaccines. Also, there are a number of potentially fatal side effects. I still argue with family about how it has not been around long enough to know the long term effects of these shots they are still not only pushing on us but on our children and teens who may get myocarditis (any heart damage, especially at a young age, do long term damage) and may cause sterilization issues however that last one may be a goal of these people because they are the same ones who think that for the sake of the environment we, in the immortal words of Ebeneezer Scrooge need to "reduce the surplus population"
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@Curiosity13 Things that haven't been around long enough to determine long-term effects:
1. Cell phones
2. Social media
3. Vaping
4. Fusion energy
5. Self-driving cars
Things that have been around long enough to know long-term effects. They don't live very long:
1. Anti-vaxxers who claim "shots" are not vaccines and could cause sterilization by hidden design
1. Cell phones
2. Social media
3. Vaping
4. Fusion energy
5. Self-driving cars
Things that have been around long enough to know long-term effects. They don't live very long:
1. Anti-vaxxers who claim "shots" are not vaccines and could cause sterilization by hidden design
GerOttman · 61-69, M
@BizSuitStacy why can't it be both?
BizSuitStacy · M
@GerOttman But the gov't health agencies and media went out of their way denying this was gene therapy...to the point of changing definitions. Perhaps Dr. Paul can shed light.
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@BizSuitStacy The science of mRNA in vaccines is it does not (that is, does not) interact with, or change, your genes in any way. So, mRNA-based vaccines are not considered gene therapy in scientific way.
Now, the problem is that you choose to establish mRNA as gene therapy which is social media circles suggests you are starting with a lie. In a court of law, we literally would refer to this as "leading the witness."
Now, the problem is that you choose to establish mRNA as gene therapy which is social media circles suggests you are starting with a lie. In a court of law, we literally would refer to this as "leading the witness."
Curiosity13 · 51-55, M
@MarkPaul ok, however some are clearly health hazards such as vaping and NONE of these are injected into the body so apples to oranges here!
Curiosity13 · 51-55, M
@MarkPaul also the rise in sudden adult death syndrome, increase in strokes, blood clots, and the fact that "get the shot and you will not get COVID or spread it" was a lie not just newness of this particular injection.
BizSuitStacy · M
@MarkPaul
Now, how did the FDA define gene therapy?
"They can replace a gene that is missing or is causing a problem.
They can add genes to the body to help treat disease. (ding ding ding ding)
Or they can turn off genes that are causing problems.
To insert new genes directly into cells, scientists use a vehicle called a “vector.” Vectors are genetically engineered to deliver the necessary genes for treating the disease.
Vectors need to be able to efficiently deliver genetic material into cells, and there are different kinds of vectors. Viruses are currently the most commonly used vectors in gene therapies because they have a natural ability to deliver genetic material into cells. Before a virus can be used to carry therapeutic genes into human cells, it is modified to remove its ability to cause infectious disease.
Gene therapy can be used to modify cells inside or outside the body. When a gene therapy is used to modify cells inside the body, a doctor will inject the vector carrying the gene directly into the patient."
Damn, that sounds exactly like what the jab is doing. And a lot different than the way vaccines work which introduce a killed or attenuated virus into the body to produce the immuno response.
So, what requires more testing...vaccines or gene therapies? Given the jab was pushed out to the public after only 8 months of testing, you begin to understand why the gov't took liberties with how II to defined the covid jab.
Leading the witness? 🤣🤣🤣. On to your next pretend career in law?
The science of mRNA in vaccines is they it does not (that is, does not) interact with, or change, your genes in any way.
Hmmm...well that doesn't sound right. And you don't sound too confident. Let's see...does the DNA within the human body naturally contain the genetic instructions to produce the C19 spike protein? Why no, it does not. So how is it possible for a human being to create the C19 spike protein? By injecting a portion of the mRNA or DNA of the SARS-CoV-2 into the cytoplasm of human cells with the genes containing the instructions to produce the spike protein. Ohhh, but it doesn't interact with your genes in anyway. 🙄 So you just copy or paraphrase what your handlers tell you without even thinking?Now, how did the FDA define gene therapy?
"They can replace a gene that is missing or is causing a problem.
They can add genes to the body to help treat disease. (ding ding ding ding)
Or they can turn off genes that are causing problems.
To insert new genes directly into cells, scientists use a vehicle called a “vector.” Vectors are genetically engineered to deliver the necessary genes for treating the disease.
Vectors need to be able to efficiently deliver genetic material into cells, and there are different kinds of vectors. Viruses are currently the most commonly used vectors in gene therapies because they have a natural ability to deliver genetic material into cells. Before a virus can be used to carry therapeutic genes into human cells, it is modified to remove its ability to cause infectious disease.
Gene therapy can be used to modify cells inside or outside the body. When a gene therapy is used to modify cells inside the body, a doctor will inject the vector carrying the gene directly into the patient."
Damn, that sounds exactly like what the jab is doing. And a lot different than the way vaccines work which introduce a killed or attenuated virus into the body to produce the immuno response.
So, what requires more testing...vaccines or gene therapies? Given the jab was pushed out to the public after only 8 months of testing, you begin to understand why the gov't took liberties with how II to defined the covid jab.
Now, the problem is that you choose to establish mRNA as gene therapy which is social media circles suggests you are starting with a lie. In a court of law, we literally would refer to this as "leading the witness."
The problem is you are relying on social media for your definition of a gene therapy, and your quoted statement above doesn't even make sense. No one tried "to establish mRNA as gene therapy" If you had a basic understanding of biology, you'd understand just how stupid that sounds. Leading the witness? 🤣🤣🤣. On to your next pretend career in law?
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@BizSuitStacy The thing is, with the power of the Internet, you kids can literally convince yourself of anything including that the earth is flat and the moon landing was staged and provide pseudo facts to prove your irregular point.
Science, not social media tells us mRNA-based vaccines are not gene therapy, but you can certainly stuff all the cut-and-paste Tucker Carlson-like noise promoted as news and on questioning explain it as performance, not news (so, "noise") to prove a point that goes against convention to make yourself feel valid.
You can do that and you are doing that here and there is nothing that can be said to refute your point of view. Even people who promote "the earth is flat" have "concrete proof" that is not supported by science (or logic) to make them feel superiour. Yet, all their "facts" don't pass scientific muster.
Now, you have fun, you hear? I will see you in Court. 🤴
Science, not social media tells us mRNA-based vaccines are not gene therapy, but you can certainly stuff all the cut-and-paste Tucker Carlson-like noise promoted as news and on questioning explain it as performance, not news (so, "noise") to prove a point that goes against convention to make yourself feel valid.
You can do that and you are doing that here and there is nothing that can be said to refute your point of view. Even people who promote "the earth is flat" have "concrete proof" that is not supported by science (or logic) to make them feel superiour. Yet, all their "facts" don't pass scientific muster.
Now, you have fun, you hear? I will see you in Court. 🤴