Prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 disease IS NOT equivalent to immunity. Therefore, those who are getting jabbed aren't getting a vaccine.

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Just the other day..may have been yesterday or the day before Fai Chi was being interviewed and he said the vaccine will not prevent someone from getting the virus then asymptomatically spreading it.
The woman at WHO said it would be rare case if an asymptomatic person spread it. She didn't mention she didn't know of a case of spreading.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Only if the rubber bnand is effective at prevent injuries.

The injection DOES stop people getting badly ill.


Okay... You are aware that a lot of people become very ill, and many die from cancer, right? But even so, you would still refuse a drug that would prevent that?

I think that sums up the difference in our positions.
Even kills some people.
Cancer is not infectious
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
Just the other day..may have been yesterday or the day before Fai Chi was being interviewed and he said the vaccine will not prevent someone from getting the virus then asymptomatically spreading it.
That's right.

Is this news to you?
Yup....
Then, although I know you expect disrespect from me - with all due respect - you haven't been paying attention.

Vaccines don't destroy viruses, and they don't stop people from carrying them.
 

inertia

Super Member
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a vaccine is “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” Immunity, in turn, is defined as “Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”

Neither Moderna nor Pfizer claim this to be the case for their COVID-19 “vaccines.” In fact, in their clinical trials, they specify that they will not even test for immunity.

Unlike real vaccines, which use an antigen of the disease you’re trying to prevent, the COVID-19 injections contain synthetic RNA fragments encapsulated in a nanolipid carrier compound, the sole purpose of which is to lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein, not the actual virus.

They do not actually impart immunity or inhibit transmissibility of the disease. In other words, they are not designed to keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they only are supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected.

As such, these products do not meet the legal or medical definition of a vaccine,

So, in summary, “vaccine” and “immunity” are well-defined terms that do not match the end points specified in COVID-19 vaccine trials. The primary end point in these trials is: “Prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 disease.” Is that the same as “immunity”? No, it is not.

Interestingly, the same cdc.gov source provides additional information.

"mRNA vaccines are a new type of vaccine to protect against infectious diseases. To trigger an immune response, many vaccines put a weakened or inactivated germ into our bodies. Not mRNA vaccines. Instead, they teach our cells how to make a protein—or even just a piece of a protein—that triggers an immune response inside our bodies. That immune response, which produces antibodies, is what protects us from getting infected if the real virus enters our bodies."

- triggers an immune response
- antibodies are produced
- protects from COVID-19

After approval -months ago- statistical "real world" result shows that the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccines cut the risk of infection by 90%. I received my second Moderna vaccination today.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
There has been ZERO testing on ANY isolated sequences. The inventor of the PCR test admitted this. Even the pieces that they have used are mixed in with all sorts of other material; it's a soup.
Isolated sequences missing. Another opportunity for Fao Chi Min obscurantism.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
This has rotated into a political crisis.
They can't produce any isolated sequences but The Head of Babble just drafted an order preventing reference to Wuhan Flu.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
As ridiculous as this all has become, I'm starting to wonder what the possibility is of viral shedding from those who have been injected. I haven't considered practicing social distancing or wearing a mask since this all began, but I'm seriously thinking about purchasing a hazmat suit and a respirator now. I really don't want to be around anyone anymore, but especially anyone who has had their holy jab already.
You posted February, now word is out, viral shedding.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
There has been ZERO testing on ANY isolated sequences. The inventor of the PCR test admitted this. Even the pieces that they have used are mixed in with all sorts of other material; it's a soup.

Their point is that healthy people with no symptoms don't need to be vaccinated with an experimental gene therapy. Just sick people who are clearly insane are going to feel the need to do something like this to stem the fear porn that Big Pharma is peddling through the mainstream news outlets. The "fire and brimstone" preachers don't hold a candle to the fear mongering going on around the world nowadays. It's ironic how people who can see how wrong it is for Christians to preach the dangers of hell fire for rejecting the gospel message, are so quick to jump on the fear porn wagon and get their holy jab little knowing that this is only going to be the first of many of these sacramental holy jabs that await them for the rest of their lives.

It's no coincidence that the guy who stole, and then patented open source software from others, and continues to throw out "updates" would see the financial benefit of applying this same method to vaccines. The first one requires two shots, but of course just like the computer viruses that are released into the world wide web, genetic material can also be manipulated requiring more vaccines to deal with them.

How about we stop letting them create these new strains in the first place, or is that too simple of an idea?

In August 2020, two researchers, Monali Rahalkar and Rahul Bahulikar, published a preprint in which they reported that they had accessed the underlying sequencing files for RaTG13. As first noticed by Twitter user Francisco A. de Ribeira, some were dated from 2017 and others from 2018. Moreover, these early RaTG13 sequences went far beyond a short fragment, encompassing most of the genome.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
You posted February, now word is out, viral shedding.
I've seen some people posting videos online of people wearing hazmat suits into grocery stores, etc. Some are doing it as a joke, but I really think the price of Hazmat suits is going to skyrocket once people start dying off in greater numbers.
 

Algor

Well-known member
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a vaccine is “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” Immunity, in turn, is defined as “Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”

Neither Moderna nor Pfizer claim this to be the case for their COVID-19 “vaccines.” In fact, in their clinical trials, they specify that they will not even test for immunity.

Unlike real vaccines, which use an antigen of the disease you’re trying to prevent, the COVID-19 injections contain synthetic RNA fragments encapsulated in a nanolipid carrier compound, the sole purpose of which is to lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein, not the actual virus.

They do not actually impart immunity or inhibit transmissibility of the disease. In other words, they are not designed to keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they only are supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected.

As such, these products do not meet the legal or medical definition of a vaccine,

So, in summary, “vaccine” and “immunity” are well-defined terms that do not match the end points specified in COVID-19 vaccine trials. The primary end point in these trials is: “Prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 disease.” Is that the same as “immunity”? No, it is not.

Pfizer and Modrna DID test for immunogenicity, just not as a primary end point. Immunogenicity is reported for humoral immunity (NEJM) and for T cell and humoral immunity (Lancet article), and lo and behold, they are immunogenic. Moreover, while the goal was indeed to limit the results of the circulating S1 protein, the way you get that circulating S1 protein is limited to two means: by infection with the virus, or by immunization. What this means is not that the immunization is not to prevent disease, but that the disease kills the patient because of the deranged immune response to the S1 protein produced by the infection, as opposed to killing the patient because of the cytolytic effect of the virus.

In other words, the intent of "lessening the infection symptoms" is completely synonymous with "keeping you from getting sick". I agree that technically this isn't a vaccine, but coronaviruses are a bit different in their biology from most lethal viruses.

The Israeli and British experience would strongly suggest that transmissibility is markedly affected, so I'm not sure why you claim that it unequivocally is not.

Whether or not you support vaccination, or should get vaccination, or think that Fauci is a weasel or savior, I don't care. But I do think the medical facts need to be clear.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Pfizer and Modrna DID test for immunogenicity, just not as a primary end point.
The primary reason to get a shot is for immunity though, and the vast majority of people getting jabbed now are under the impression that this is the primary end point.
the way you get that circulating S1 protein is limited to two means: by infection with the virus, or by immunization.
Infection with the virus provides immunization. A gene therapy that does not have that as a primary end point, doesn't necessarily do that at all.
What this means is not that the immunization is not to prevent disease,
You're conflating injection with immunization.
but that the disease kills the patient because of the deranged immune response to the S1 protein produced by the infection,
When you say "infection" are you referring to the gene therapy?
as opposed to killing the patient because of the cytolytic effect of the virus.

In other words, the intent of "lessening the infection symptoms" is completely synonymous with "keeping you from getting sick".
Yet the CDC, WHO, Dr. Fauci, et al. all point out that this does not prevent one from getting sick, especially when exposed to the wild virus, or any other mutation as well.
I agree that technically this isn't a vaccine, but coronaviruses are a bit different in their biology from most lethal viruses.
Correct, the most notable reason being that corona viruses aren't all that lethal to begin with.
The Israeli and British experience would strongly suggest that transmissibility is markedly affected, so I'm not sure why you claim that it unequivocally is not.
Because their own documents admit that they can transmit this gene therapy through casual contact, e.g. skin contact and breathing.
I do think the medical facts need to be clear.
I couldn't agree more which is why one has to wonder why emergency use authorization of experimental gene therapies which have no previous history of success are not only being allowed, but practically forced upon the general population without their informed consent. Furthermore, this is wholly unnecessary, not to mention illegal; when other options are available. Plenty of people took advantage of those other options.

Ultimately, the vast majority of people don't need to be vaccinated anyways due to the fact that they already have herd immunity, and none of these gene therapies will ever be able to keep up with the ever changing mutations that are so prevalent among corona viruses.
 

Algor

Well-known member
The primary reason to get a shot is for immunity though, and the vast majority of people getting jabbed now are under the impression that this is the primary end point.
You may be right. It seems to increase the proportion of asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic infection.

Infection with the virus provides immunization. A gene therapy that does not have that as a primary end point, doesn't necessarily do that at all.
The shot IS immunogenic. That's the point. Whether or not the degree of immunization was a primary measurement endpoint for one phase of its testing doesn't affect that. A "primary endpoint" is something you track in a trial for all patients, maybe to evaluate safety or efficacy so that you know if you must end the trial. Because of the difficulties in measuring immunogenicity in coronaviruses in general, they didn't use it as a primary endpoint, but that doesn't mean they didn't measure it or think it was important. It's a technical term used for structuring a clinical trial, not a medical term that measures efficacy.
You're conflating injection with immunization.
The injection is immunogenic in a very important way. If you don't want to call that immunization, I'm fine with that. Call it "George", so long as it is clear that the mRNA injection is immunogenic.
When you say "infection" are you referring to the gene therapy?
I mean the Covid-19 viral infection.
Yet the CDC, WHO, Dr. Fauci, et al. all point out that this does not prevent one from getting sick, especially when exposed to the wild virus, or any other mutation as well.
Two points:
a) no vaccine or immunization is 100% effective
b) the goal is to prevent clinical disease. If you had a means whereby you could eliminate clinical disease even if infection was not reduced at all, that's still a worthwhile approach. Infection is not synonymous with disease.
Correct, the most notable reason being that corona viruses aren't all that lethal to begin with.
Depending on the coronavirus. MERS is a bad customer. So was the 2003 SARS virus. Both are highly pathogenic but not so easily transmitted. Covid-19 is only moderately pathogenic, but highly contagious.
Because their own documents admit that they can transmit this gene therapy through casual contact, e.g. skin contact and breathing.
Why is this important, and can you supply a reference to show that this is true? I am very skeptical that one injected person can pass any significant amount of the mRNA to another by skin contact or breathing.
I couldn't agree more which is why one has to wonder why emergency use authorization of experimental gene therapies which have no previous history of success are not only being allowed, but practically forced upon the general population without their informed consent. Furthermore, this is wholly unnecessary, not to mention illegal; when other options are available. Plenty of people took advantage of those other options.
mRNA that does not integrate or persist is not really "gene therapy" in the usual sense. Gene therapy generally implies modifying the genome by changing the nuclear DNA sequence, or at the very least injecting stable episomic DNA or RNA, which is not what the mRNA injection does. Emergency authorization was provided because the virus was causing a high degree of excess mortality, and because the vaccine technology was already fairly well along in development to assess for safety: that's one of the reasons Trump was so confident it could be developed rapidly: it was already far along. I agree that lots of people could have done lots of things differently, and so forth and I'm really not interested in that part of the discussion. But this is an effective preventative modality associated with very low medical risk. That's all.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
You may be right. It seems to increase the proportion of asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic infection.
I've seen some evidence that suggests it may be more than just mildly symptomatic as well. Regardless, no one with any critical thinking skills would want to get jabbed so they can get sick. That just doesn't make any sense at all.
The shot IS immunogenic. That's the point.
I think the greater point is in noting that none of these companies are claiming that these gene therapies can provide anyone with immunity.
Whether or not the degree of immunization was a primary measurement endpoint for one phase of its testing doesn't affect that. A "primary endpoint" is something you track in a trial for all patients, maybe to evaluate safety or efficacy so that you know if you must end the trial. Because of the difficulties in measuring immunogenicity in coronaviruses in general, they didn't use it as a primary endpoint, but that doesn't mean they didn't measure it or think it was important.
I don't see how they can measure it when they're giving it to the general population.
It's a technical term used for structuring a clinical trial, not a medical term that measures efficacy.
Same goes for the efficacy numbers we've been seeing lately claiming "95% eficacy", and PCR tests being used to diagnose people with Covid 19. Perhaps when they've been able to finish clinical trials, and analyze the data, we'll be able to see what's really happening.
The injection is immunogenic in a very important way. If you don't want to call that immunization, I'm fine with that. Call it "George", so long as it is clear that the mRNA injection is immunogenic.
The important thing to note is that they are not claiming anyone will be immunized by their gene therapies.
Two points:
a) no vaccine or immunization is 100% effective
The more important point is in noting that when it is killing people right after they are injected, it's time to stop injecting people.
b) the goal is to prevent clinical disease. If you had a means whereby you could eliminate clinical disease even if infection was not reduced at all, that's still a worthwhile approach. Infection is not synonymous with disease.
When they claim that you need to get tested to find out if you have the virus, it's not wo
Depending on the coronavirus. MERS is a bad customer. So was the 2003 SARS virus. Both are highly pathogenic but not so easily transmitted. Covid-19 is only moderately pathogenic, but highly contagious.
I think to claim it is mildly pathogenic is an exaggeration. There seem to be more than a few strains, some are more contagious than others. From what I've read the Wuhan strain was quite lethal, yet not all that contagious at all.
Why is this important, and can you supply a reference to show that this is true? I am very skeptical that one injected person can pass any significant amount of the mRNA to another by skin contact or breathing.
Here's what Pfizer claims in their documents submitted to the FDA for approval:

“A PHASE 1/2/3, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, RANDOMIZED, OBSERVER-BLIND, DOSE-FINDING STUDY TO EVALUATE THE SAFETY, TOLERABILITY, IMMUNOGENICITY, AND EFFICACY OF SARS-COV-2RNA VACCINE CANDIDATES AGAINST COVID-19 IN HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS.”


On page 67, we find a warning about potential adverse effects of the vaccine. The term “study intervention” is used instead of the more common "vaccination". “Environmental exposure” means contact with elements of the vaccine other than by injection.

Warning of adverse effect: “A female is found to be pregnant while being exposed or having been exposed to study intervention due to environmental exposure. Below are examples of environmental exposure during pregnancy:”

“A female family member or healthcare provider reports that she is pregnant after having been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact.”

“A male family member or healthcare provider who has been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact then exposes his female partner prior to or around the time of conception.”

These warnings, from the vaccine manufacturer, Pfizer imply that women can be harmed by breathing in, or contacting by skin, the vaccine as it moves from person to person.

Here's what Johns Hopkins has to say on the subject:

"What is the technology? Self-spreading vaccines—also known as transmissible or self-propagating vaccines—are genetically engineered to move through populations in
the same way as communicable diseases,"

Go to page 45 of the link below for more:

mRNA that does not integrate or persist is not really "gene therapy"
Then why do these companies refer to them as gene therapies in their own documents?
in the usual sense. Gene therapy generally implies modifying the genome by changing the nuclear DNA sequence, or at the very least injecting stable episomic DNA or RNA, which is not what the mRNA injection does.
I don't see what the effective difference is in what you're describing and what these companies describe in their own literature.
Emergency authorization was provided because the virus was causing a high degree of excess mortality,
That was the claim initially, but now we can see that simply isn't the case at all. The CDC has admitted that only slightly over 5% of the deaths were from Covid 19 only. The vast majority were deaths by people with as many as 4 comorbidities. They even include
"intentional and unintentional injury, poisoning and other adverse events"

Yes, these are included as Covid 19 deaths.

and because the vaccine technology was already fairly well along in development to assess for safety: that's one of the reasons Trump was so confident it could be developed rapidly:
From what I read, they hadn't even completed animal testing, much less analyzed the data.
it was already far along. I agree that lots of people could have done lots of things differently, and so forth and I'm really not interested in that part of the discussion. But this is an effective preventative modality associated with very low medical risk. That's all.
Of the vaccines that have been removed, more people have died from this gene therapy than all other vaccines combined. The estimates going around are that less than 1 to 10 percent of deaths are reported to VAERS which makes one wonder why none of them have been prevented from continuing to inject people.

Then again, when one considers that the CDC, WHO, NIH, Dr. Fauci, et al. are all making money, it isn't all that surprising at all.
 
Top