Covid vaccine after having covid

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You got it in one. Antivax word-games.

I bet you believed in WMD's in Iraq.. and that Saddam was behind 9/11..

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by wingssail

It is "Gene Therapy" or not?

My understanding is that the virus' mRNA genes were modified to a) make it no longer able to produce the disease and b) to force the human cells to produce spike proteins which induce an immune system response.
(Now they have discovered that what they thought was a harmless protein is actually itself toxic and responsible for part of the pathogenesis of the disease. This is the same protein that the mRNA codes for. We still don't know the implications)

The modified mRNA is wrapped in lipid so it can survive the injection and be absorbed by the cell.
(yes, wrapped in polyethylene glycol nanospheres)
The modified mRNA causes the human cell to produce spike proteins and is destroyed while still in the muscle tissue.(yes but half of it left the muscle tissue and went to the blood and other organs)

None of the human's cells are changed and none of the human's RNA or DNA or Genes are modified by this process. (This is what they claim however, it has been pointed out that it can't be completely ruled out)

Oh, and none of the mRNA was found to have migrated to other organs, only the lipid encasements (read the Pfiser paper's tables). (In those tests on mice, the lipid encasements did not contain any mRNA, they contained a surrogate enzyme. About half the lipid encasements were found to stay near the injection site, the other half migrated to the blood and to organs including a significant percentage to the ovaries and testes. We can only assume that their mRNA payload remains intact. No studies are available.)

Tell me how this is incorrect.

I think the use of the term "Gene Thearpy" by the developers of these vaccines is unfortunate. I think the use of the term by others is a conscious attempt to use a scare term, and is dishonest.

Now the Journal Nature says it is Gene Therapy. LE says it isn't. Believe who you like.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I bet you believed in WMD's in Iraq.. and that Saddam was behind 9/11..

You'd be wrong.

[S/V Adeline]

Originally Posted by Shanachie

So you marvel at how you, sitting at your computer, can be smarter than the tens of thousands of pilots who have been flying across the world for the last 100 years?


After all, you've discovered that they are wasting fuel by needlessly taking the wrong routes.


How could you be incorrect? After all, like the other anti-vaxxers on this list, you have a web browser and can do ninth-grade math. What else does anyone need to figure out the world?


I'm not even going to let myself hope that you see anything wrong with this picture.


The world sure is simple when you don't know anything.

I don't understand why you have this hatred for me... and FYI, I'm not an anti-vaxxer and have had both of my Moderna shots months ago..(included paperwork explicitly explained it does not stop contraction of or spreading of covid, but it should help you survive it)
I didn't say I found a better way. I never claimed pilots were doing it wrong.
I believe the accuracy of GPS guidance, I believe the accuracy of measurements obtained through GPS positioning. If GPS measurements say it is 10 miles between 2 points, I trust that. Likewise I am sorta forced to believe airlines when they show their route path, (why would they lie?) If GPS measurements of the route path are substantially longer than the straight line distance (+40%) it begs the question *why?* The airlines publish flight distances and expected travel times (varies with weather).

[CatNewBee]

There are many answers to this. You get a flight corridor, some countries and regions require you to fly at specific altitudes and pathways, it is regulated traffic.

There are jet streams that may be in your favor, so you save fuel and time when you use them or if they are agaist you, you safe fuel and time by avoiding them.

You may want to avoid some thunderstorms and weather systems for safety reason.

Some obvious reason is, maps are flat, a Mercator projection, that is basically a huge distortion of the size of land and distances if your map is in a large scale, so a straight line on the map would be a long curve on the surface - and sometimes a curve on the map is in fact a straight line on the surface, simply because of the projection.

If you have a globe and compare the size of Greenland on the globe with the size on the map, you may be surprized.

Also fuel economy is a function of air resistance and friction versus lift. The higher you can fly, the less friction you have to ovecome, so you need then less fuel. On the other hand, the higher you get, the less lift your wings produce, so you need a higher speed / more power, what burns more fuel. But there are optimum heights where lift, speed, friction and fuel consumption are optimal for a given design, usually between 30000 and 38000ft. It is also a security issue (pressure in the aircraft cabin) that limits the usable altitude.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline

A prime example would be over 100 years of geological research which revealed that our (round-ish) planet has cycles. In the last century scientists revealed that our planet was in the beginning of a significant climate shift, one that has repeated fairly consistently over the last million years. In fact geological evidence reveals some 15 times this has happened in the last million years....
Fast forward 50-ish years and the climate change is caused by humans and our pollution. Now, I'm not advocating pollution, and by no means would I advocate humans...but common sense has to be applied when accepting reality. If it's been happening for over a million years...I don't think Bubba and his out of tune truck started this...
This was the subject of after school specials when I was a child, now you are labeled a conspiracy theorist by the *woke* if you deny the political scientists.
As a species we should all be ashamed of how we have treated our planet...but it would be amazing if the same species had the sense (common or not) to know they are being lied to.

If I give a meaningful answer to this, it will turn this thread into yet another climate change dumpster fire. But this is a perfect illustration of why the process of science is so powerful. Using this tool we can climb out of our ignorance induced by so-called 'common sense', and we can start to understand what is actually happening and what is causing it.

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

If I give a meaningful answer to this, it will turn this thread into yet another climate change dumpster fire. But this is a perfect illustration of why the process of science is so powerful. Using this tool we can climb out of our ignorance induced by so-called 'common sense', and we can start to understand what is actually happening and what is causing it.

Hopefully you start some day to do this.
Science is dispute, not agreement and mainstream.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Tell it to Dr. Peter McCoullough, an expert Dr. and researcher who is curing many patients with his oral covid multidrug protocol. Our top health officials do not treat patients or do research. They are not the true experts. They are the sell outs. HCQ is moderately effective. The real issue is that Ivermectin is very effective but is being suppressed because the EAU would have been voided if the truth came out. Big Pharma can generate a large quantity of published studies for anything in short order. The major scientific journal editors have sold out. This has been documented, proven, and even admitted to. They generated a negative Ivermectin study that has been discredited for many reasons yet it was the hinge point for the Who not recommending the drug and widely quoted by Yahoo news and all of mainstream media. Can you not see this? Who then are these established experts that we should be listening to. Name some please.

Can you not see that you're so deep into a conspiracy theory rabbit hole that you can no longer tell light from dark?

There are ways to establish whether this "oral Covid-19 multidrug protocol" is effective. Run a bunch of double-blind trials. If it works, then great.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

Hopefully you start some day to do this.
Science is dispute, not agreement and mainstream.

Science is process. It involves the challenging of ideas and findings. When an idea passes through the crucible of this process, it takes on a mantle of general agreement and becomes mainstream.

With every comment you make, you demonstrate you have no idea what science actually is.

[Thumbs Up]

If you travel in any direction other than due north or due south the shortest route will not use a single bearing but instead, a series of waypoints. This is called a great circle route. You can picture it with a string and a globe. A GPS gives a rhumb line route, which is not the shortest route (unless due North or South)
Here is a cool site that lets you choose different airports and view the great circle routes. I have Portland to Tampa selected. It shows a curved line but is actually a direct route.https://www.greatcirclemap.com/?routes=PDX-TPA

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

If you travel in any direction other than due north or due south the shortest route will not use a single bearing but instead, a series of waypoints. This is called a great circle route. You can picture it with a string and a globe. A GPS gives a rhumb line route, which is not the shortest route (unless due North or South)...

FWIW: And, that would be Geographic [True] North↔South, not magnetic.

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by wingssail

It is "Gene Therapy" or not?

My understanding is that the virus' mRNA genes were modified to a) make it no longer able to produce the disease and b) to force the human cells to produce spike proteins which induce an immune system response.

The modified mRNA is wrapped in lipid so it can survive the injection and be absorbed by the cell.

The modified mRNA causes the human cell to produce spike proteins and is destroyed while still in the muscle tissue.

None of the human's cells are changed and none of the human's RNA or DNA or Genes are modified by this process.

Oh, and none of the mRNA was found to have migrated to other organs, only the lipid encasements (read the Pfiser paper's tables).

Tell me how this is incorrect.

I think the use of the term "Gene Thearpy" by the developers of these vaccines is unfortunate. I think the use of the term by others is a conscious attempt to use a scare term, and is dishonest.

While there is scientific disagreement on several of the points you have raised, I will comment only on the one highlighted. According to French geneticist ,Alexandra Caude, what you have written, though true in itself, is a simplistic understanding of the process. You need to understand the role of the epigenetic environment in order to fully comprehend and appreciate the effect of these mrna vaccines. She is not the only scientist to have spoken on this and have been silenced by the media and the tech giants.

I know you are not into watching videos, but just in case if you are genuinely interested in this topic here she is discussing it.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/hvtMOdAKeAzh/

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Greg K

... According to French geneticist ,Alexandra Caude, what you have written, though true in itself, is a simplistic understanding of the process. You need to understand the role of the epigenetic environment in order to fully comprehend and appreciate the effect of these mrna vaccines ..

For any one interested, her name is Alexandra Henrion-Caude
➥ https://scholar.google.fr/citations?...z9MAAAAJ&hl=fr

Co-author of:
“SARS-CoV-2 mass vaccination: Urgent questions on vaccine safety that demand answers from international health agencies, regulatory authorities, governments and vaccine developers”
➥ https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ine_developers

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

There are ways to establish whether this "oral Covid-19 multidrug protocol" is effective. Run a bunch of double-blind trials. If it works, then great.

Your arguments and that of others here regarding the scientific process are both naïve and disingenuous.

Double-blind studies are incredibly expensive to set up and run. Most are undertaken only by big pharma, and generally only to prove the efficacy and safety of some new treatment on which they can make a handsome profit.

Big pharma has absolutely no interest in running double blind studies on medications which are no longer under patent restrictions and, outside of government regulatory bodies, there are very few, if any, interested parties with pockets deep enough to undertake such large trials.

Consequently, this continuing harping about double blind trails for drugs like HCQ or Ivermectin to prove their efficacy while ignoring numerous other valid means to evaluate these treatments is just pure nonsense. Big pharma along with it's regulatory partners in the FDA, WHO and CDC have made enormous efforts to push through a novel vaccine on an emergency approval basis without yet fully understanding the long terms effects, yet long known, safe treatments which now have a solid record of efficacy are continued to be held back from the public based solely on this demand for double blind studies. You and others here are incredibly naïve to the point of being blind to think that suppression of these medications has not been deliberate in order to satisfy the conditions for the emergency approval of these vaccines.

These vaccines could not have been approved for emergency use if there were other effective medications available.

I will add one other point about sources. You and many others have used the argument of valid sources. While most of us can agree that probably the most valid sources are peer reviewed, academic articles, many here on both sides of the argument are using media source to support their perspective. I think nobody here will deny that there is now and has been for some time an active and robust campaign within media and big tech to censor and marginalize voices which contradict the approved narratives. Fact checking not just the information itself but actually the sources is now common. This combined development has an incredibly toxic consequence on the productive exchange of information. First, credible independent voices are forced out of the main media venues, and then when they are presented on venues which do accept such independent thinking, their voices are again denied due to not being presented on a main media platform.

In short, what is left in the public domain is an echo chamber with no dissenting voices at all. This is absolutely not a healthy situation and, indeed, is most likely much more dangerous than insisting that public platforms refrain from censoring contrarian views and opinions.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Greg K

Your arguments and that of others here regarding the scientific process are both naïve and disingenuous.

Double-blind studies are incredibly expensive to set up and run. Most are undertaken only by big pharma, and generally only to prove the efficacy and safety of some new treatment on which they can make a handsome profit.

Big pharma has absolutely no interest in running double blind studies on medications which are no longer under patent restrictions and, outside of government regulatory bodies, there are very few, if any, interested parties with pockets deep enough to undertake such large trials.

Consequently, this continuing harping about double blind trails for drugs like HCQ or Ivermectin to prove their efficacy while ignoring numerous other valid means to evaluate these treatments is just pure nonsense. Big pharma along with it's regulatory partners in the FDA, WHO and CDC have made enormous efforts to push through a novel vaccine on an emergency approval basis without yet fully understanding the long terms effects, yet long known, safe treatments which now have a solid record of efficacy are continued to be held back from the public based solely on this demand for double blind studies. You and others here are incredibly naïve to the point of being blind to think that suppression of these medications has not been deliberate in order to satisfy the conditions for the emergency approval of these vaccines.

These vaccines could not have been approved for emergency use if there were other effective medications available.

I will add one other point about sources. You and many others have used the argument of valid sources. While most of us can agree that probably the most valid sources are peer reviewed, academic articles, many here on both sides of the argument are using media source to support their perspective. I think nobody here will deny that there is now and has been for some time an active and robust campaign within media and big tech to censor and marginalize voices which contradict the approved narratives. Fact checking not just the information itself but actually the sources is now common. This combined development has an incredibly toxic consequence on the productive exchange of information. First, credible independent voices are forced out of the main media venues, and then when they are presented on venues which do accept such independent thinking, their voices are again denied due to not being presented on a main media platform.

In short, what is left in the public domain is an echo chamber with no dissenting voices at all. This is absolutely not a healthy situation and, indeed, is most likely much more dangerous than insisting that public platforms refrain from censoring contrarian views and opinions.

Hope you don't have an FB account, I can see some here reporting you to FB as an Extremist..