MRNA Vaccine Compendium

GorillaHead

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2018
Messages
2,380
Location
USA
So whats the difference between current vaccine methods vs mrna. In terms of side effects. I am confident current methods have resulted in allergies
 

Regina

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
6,511
Location
Chicago
Dr. Alexandra Henrion_Caude discussing mRNA vaccine also brings up the potential of reverse transcriptase being incorporated into our cells.

Timestamp around 52:00
 
Last edited:
OP
LucyL

LucyL

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
1,245
The CDC website has a long discussion about vaccinating "Pregnant People" with their mRNA "vaccines". How is it possible to take any of their "science" seriously when they don't?

Vaccination of pregnant or lactating people​

Pregnant people

Observational data demonstrate that while the absolute risk is low, pregnant people with COVID-19 have an increased risk of severe illness, including illness resulting in intensive care admission, mechanical ventilation, or death. Additionally, they might be at an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preterm birth.
 
OP
LucyL

LucyL

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
1,245
Pieter Borger has a thread on Twitter countering the Snopes claim that mRNA vaccines won't alter your DNA. Good to see some more voices speaking up.


1609767741575.png


This is Pieter Borger's ResearchGate profile
 

LeeLemonoil

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
4,265
The Thread of under Borger‘s Tweet gives explanations how he sees the potential of mRNA vax altering DNA.
Don’t know if it’s true, he is also some sort of creationist, but seems rather smart.

And im getting more paranoid by the day now.
Why is it that up until now only three vax have managed breakthrough and gotten approval. And these are Fauci‘s Baby Moderna, Pfizer‘s acquired lab with Gates pushing it long since, and AstraZeneca, which is basically the Imperial Pharm-Branch.

Where are the others? Novavax, Curevac, japanese, Korean? Where is even Sanofi+GSK?
 
OP
LucyL

LucyL

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
1,245
The Thread of under Borger‘s Tweet gives explanations how he sees the potential of mRNA vax altering DNA.
Don’t know if it’s true, he is also some sort of creationist, but seems rather smart.

And im getting more paranoid by the day now.
Why is it that up until now only three vax have managed breakthrough and gotten approval. And these are Fauci‘s Baby Moderna, Pfizer‘s acquired lab with Gates pushing it long since, and AstraZeneca, which is basically the Imperial Pharm-Branch.

Where are the others? Novavax, Curevac, japanese, Korean? Where is even Sanofi+GSK?
I did not know he was a creationist! (My opinion of him went up:D) It seems like in America the mRNA injections are being given priority, but haven't China and Russia approved traditional vaccines?
 

LeeLemonoil

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
4,265
I did not know he was a creationist! (My opinion of him went up:D) It seems like in America the mRNA injections are being given priority, but haven't China and Russia approved traditional vaccines?

Haven’t looked into the Sino stuff but Russia uses Adeno-Vector based vaccine, as does Astra Zeneca.

I‘m not sure if theVector technology can be called traditional, it’s used in research and biotech but vaccines with it are few and newish.

Also, i‘m not at ease with them either. They bring foreign, synthetic NA into the nucleus to prompt anti-gen synthesis and subsequent antibody production.
The side effects with AstraZeneca seem nasty and frequent.


J&J is about to get approval, also vector. But only one shot necessary, could be a plus
 
OP
LucyL

LucyL

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
1,245
Haven’t looked into the Sino stuff but Russia uses Adeno-Vector based vaccine, as does Astra Zeneca.

I‘m not sure if theVector technology can be called traditional, it’s used in research and biotech but vaccines with it are few and newish.

Also, i‘m not at ease with them either. They bring foreign, synthetic NA into the nucleus to prompt anti-gen synthesis and subsequent antibody production.
The side effects with AstraZeneca seem nasty and frequent.


J&J is about to get approval, also vector. But only one shot necessary, could be a plus
I'll have to look more at the adeno-vector tech. I used "traditional" to exclusion of the mRNA shots which aren't really vaccines.
 

LeeLemonoil

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
4,265
Vector-tech isnt that much different from modRNA vaccines. Iz brings foreign RNA into the nucleus. It seems it carries potential that way to stay even longer in the cel than modified RNA
 

LeeLemonoil

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
4,265
I did not know he was a creationist! (My opinion of him went up:D) It seems like in America the mRNA injections are being given priority, but haven't China and Russia approved traditional vaccines?
If you like the creationist rationale with viruses here is the stuff Borger uses fo hi aguments laid out. I have no opinion on it.


maybe the other Christ-fearing people here find it interesting

@charlie

mybe deserving of its own thread and discussion
 
OP
LucyL

LucyL

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
1,245
This is interesting about adenoviral vectors...

"However, several studies have highlighted major drawbacks to using adenovirus as vaccine and gene therapy vectors. These include pre-existing immunity in humans, inflammatory responses, sequestering of the vector to liver and spleen, and immunodominance of the vector genes over transgenes."
 

LeeLemonoil

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
4,265
This is interesting about adenoviral vectors...

"However, several studies have highlighted major drawbacks to using adenovirus as vaccine and gene therapy vectors. These include pre-existing immunity in humans, inflammatory responses, sequestering of the vector to liver and spleen, and immunodominance of the vector genes over transgenes."

That’s correct. From that angle, the mRNA vaccines are a technological advancement, fewer potential drawbacks

But I just grasped for the first time that with Pfizer and Moderna the effectivity is really not 95/99% as claimed

The confidence-intervall lies between -159% and 99% in 95% of the results of the trials.

Wow, that can mean anything. Who approves of that? Incredible.
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
If you like the creationist rationale with viruses here is the stuff Borger uses fo hi aguments laid out. I have no opinion on it.


maybe the other Christ-fearing people here find it interesting

@charlie

mybe deserving of its own thread and discussion

Do you have any, or sufficient, knowledge on the subject to be able separate what is scientific from what is creationist in Borger's discussion, other than it appears on a creationist website? If not I consider your post a cheap shot.
 

LeeLemonoil

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
4,265
Do you have any, or sufficient, knowledge on the subject to be able separate what is scientific from what is creationist in Borger's discussion, other than it appears on a creationist website? If not I consider your post a cheap shot.

No need to consider it a cheap shot because my mentioning of him publishing on creationist outlets was not meant in any way to devalue his hypothesis, not to subvert his scientific credentials.
Just to give as much context as I could gather.
I also explicitly stated that „I have no opinion on it“ - meaning I cannot judge if it is a noteworthy or valid hypothesis or just creationist pseudo-Science.
 
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom