mRNA Spike protein is very dangerous, it's cytotoxic - says INVENTOR of mRNA Technology

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hush9300

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
2,261
So more contagious = faster spread = able to get to those who are vulnerable to the disease more quickly yes? While the disease it causes (edit for typo) may not itself be more deadly, it can spread faster and therefore kill more people before we can properly protect ourselves against it. And death aside, COVID-19 still have some side effects that I would rather avoid if possible thanks.
Yes. That's why you protect the vulnerable...


As per CDC Covid planning. In a worst case scenario regarding transmission the IFR (Infection Fatality Rates) in those under 65 would be 2% while under best estimate it 0.7%. For those over 65 it is 27% and 9% respectively.

Now the R0 (transmissibility) for the Delta variant is believed to be between 5 and 8 but the same logic applies. At the same time it also appears that the Delta variant is significantly less virulent according to UK data. It is causing way less deaths per case than the Alpha variant over the same period. The world is going on like this Delta variant is measles like in its transmissibility but it's far from it.

The virus is merely doing what viruses tend to do. Become more transmissible but less virulent. It doesn't serve the virus well to kill everybody it comes into contact with because it would soon run out of hosts. What we're witnessing is the virus becoming endemic. I.e. Finding its balance with its hosts.
Shifting goalposts. It's about minimising damage, which includes deaths. I never said anything about saving everyone. Go back and read my post properly.
Not shifting any goalposts but yes, get the vulnerable vaccinated above all else because that's how you keep hospitalisations and deaths down.

In my opinion there is an irrational fear regarding Covid. The measures taken and the plan to vaccinate the entire planet, even going as far as vaccine passports, is completely out of whack with the risk.
 

Grant

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
60,604
Accidents happen.
sure.
i'm certain you would have noticed from personal experience, when receiving an intramuscular injection the needle enters perpendicular to your skin - whereas with the intravenous injection, the needle enters parallel to the skin.
the chances of a needle entering the skin in a perpendicular manner and stopping midway in a vein thus becoming an intravenous injection - are pretty damn small.
keep in mind the bore of the needle and circumference of a vein play a role.

Dispersed to where? What prevents it from leaving the site?
muscles contain dendritic cells, these attach to antigens. a dendritic cell acts as an identifying messenger of sorts. the dendritic cell then presents it's "message" to t-cells & b-cells - which triggers the production of antibodies and training the "memory" to fight ongoing infection.
this same process blocks spike proteins entering cells.
Fat is not isolated from those. The butt which contains more fat is used for vaccination but not routinely for other reasons. Maybe it should become a routine site.
the butt is generally not used for vaccination purposes.
the muscle (not fat) is used for intramuscular injection - typically higher volume injections.
imagine muscle as blotting paper of sorts - the vaccine stays at the site for a while which in turn helps train the immune system.

of fat - think of liposuction. the fat is simply vacuumed / sucked out.
there is no surgical procedure required to detach connective tissue or cauterize blood vessels
 
Last edited:

AlphaJohn

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
14,636
It's new technology. Nobody can know exactly how it works and what all the risks are. Try to keep up.

(1993)

That is kinda not so new tech then.
Yes its the 1st vaccine that went to full production for humans but pre Covid we had others like Zika mRNA vaccine that was running the normal trails pre 2020, Covid just kinda stole its limelight cause of pandemic nature. Also we been using mRNA based vaccines in livestock way before 2020.
 

JangoFett

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
846
Your argument is as follows:

- No evidence to show there is an obvious reaction (so at this point, as stated we have no evidence).
- However, there is no evidence to support that there are NO adverse obvious reactions either.
- Hence something could still happen.

I entirely agree.



It's not a fallacious analogy.

- No evidence to show there is an (incoming meteor strike) obvious reaction (so at this point, as stated we have no evidence).
- However, there is no evidence to support that there are NO (incoming meteor strikes) adverse obvious reactions either.
- Hence something could still happen.

You can literally swap out the subject and it works for anything.
Your analogy doesn't contain a causal link between the meteorite strike and any other event.

It's really not implausible that there are long term effects from the vaccines that we are not yet familiar with because there hasn't been enough time for the effects to become apparent. Novel medicines usually remain in the testing stages for half a decade precisely for this reason.
 

tetrasect

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
9,097
No obvious reactions are visible or detectable. No evidence to support the conclusion that there are no adverse reactions.

Same can be said about drinking water and breathing air.

If no reactions are detectable then we say there are no reactions.

But if you want to carry on with that logic and say that there is no evidence to support the conclusion that getting a haircut has no adverse reactions then be my guest.
 

tetrasect

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
9,097
Your analogy doesn't contain a causal link between the meteorite strike and any other event.

It's really not implausible that there are long term effects from the vaccines that we are not yet familiar with because there hasn't been enough time for the effects to become apparent. Novel medicines usually remain in the testing stages for half a decade precisely for this reason.

Yes, if we do detect reactions on the future THEN we can say that there are reactions.

Same as drinking water. Right now we can say there are no adverse reactions from drinking water (because we have not detected any) but that does not mean that it is impossible for someone to detect an adverse reaction in the future.
 

JangoFett

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
846
Yes, if we do detect reactions on the future THEN we can say that there are reactions.
Here's the original context of the argument:


The claim that there are no adverse reactions is what was being challenged as being premature. No one claimed that there are adverse reactions.

Same as drinking water. Right now we can say there are no adverse reactions from drinking water (because we have not detected any) but that does not mean that it is impossible for someone to detect an adverse reaction in the future.
No, water is something that has been in the environment for a couple of billion years. we've therefore had a very long time to observe what water does and does not do over time. The vaccines, on the other hand, have been around for less than a year, which means there hasn't been enough time to determine if there are long term effects or not.
 

Hush9300

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
2,261
Your diagram is still too complicated. Here’s a lower grade version...

37b6a465942aa7cf48c11c1e94ec83eb.jpg
I don't know how to tell you this but your illustration is not as good as it appears when you factor in that according to the UK data the Delta variant is significantly less deadly than the Alpha variant.

If they want to be transparent then they should include CFR for only the Alpha variant in their third wave.
 

Rosaudio

First Officer
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
22,123
I don't know how to tell you this but your illustration is not as good as it appears when you factor in that according to the UK data the Delta variant is significantly less deadly than the Alpha variant.
Is that because of vaccines/new treatments, or the variant itself?
 

AlphaJohn

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
14,636
I don't know how to tell you this but your illustration is not as good as it appears when you factor in that according to the UK data the Delta variant is significantly less deadly than the Alpha variant.

If they want to be transparent then they should include CFR for only the Alpha variant in their third wave.

1626765659519.png

Ie: Post source please

Cause Indonesia begs to differ with their Delta numbers

1626765711143.png

 

tetrasect

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
9,097
Here's the original context of the argument:


The claim that there are no adverse reactions is what was being challenged as being premature. No one claimed that there are adverse reactions.


No, water is something that has been in the environment for a couple of billion years; we've therefore had a very long time to observe what water does and does not do over time. The vaccines, on the other hand, have been around for less than a year, which means there hasn't been enough time to determine if there are long term effects or not.

Who said that we are 100% sure that there are no long term adverse reactions from the vaccine? Nobody.

He said there are no adverse reactions detected until NOW.

But if you look at how these mRNA vaccines work, it becomes very obvious that the likelihood of there being long term reactions is basically non-existent.

This is because unlike traditional medicine that you take every day for years, your body breaks the vaccine down in about 3 days. The spike proteins that are produced during that time last as long as it takes for your body to make antibodies. And that's it. There is no vaccine left in your body to cause any kind of reaction in the future.
 

tetrasect

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
9,097
I don't know how to tell you this but your illustration is not as good as it appears when you factor in that according to the UK data the Delta variant is significantly less deadly than the Alpha variant.

If they want to be transparent then they should include CFR for only the Alpha variant in their third wave.

Indonesia also has the delta variant.


vacc.png
 

Hush9300

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
2,261
View attachment 1110808

Ie: Post source please

Cause Indonesia begs to differ with their Delta numbers

View attachment 1110810

You're so right hey... Lets have a look.

See South Africa's deaths as opposed to cases. The Delta variant again appears significantly less deadly in a largely unvaccinated population.

Edit: Added the Public Health England Technical Briefing

 

Attachments

  • IMG_0226.PNG
    IMG_0226.PNG
    207.1 KB · Views: 8
  • IMG_0227.PNG
    IMG_0227.PNG
    211.1 KB · Views: 8
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
26,878
Is that because of vaccines/new treatments, or the variant itself?
The variant itself. Certainly in SA. We have only just reached slightly over 1 million of the population fully vaccinated as per the current definition.
The vaccines have had zero chance to impact on the numbers, and previous infection is clearly no guarantee against re infection.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
26,878
View attachment 1110808

Ie: Post source please

Cause Indonesia begs to differ with their Delta numbers

View attachment 1110810

Dozens die because of the lack of treatment! Does not mean the variant is more dangerous. No oxygen, plus no recognised effective treatment medication available. In other words another failure of the health system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa

tetrasect

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
9,097
The variant itself. Certainly in SA. We have only just reached slightly over 1 million of the population fully vaccinated as per the current definition.
The vaccines have had zero chance to impact on the numbers, and previous infection is clearly no guarantee against re infection.

It might not make the biggest difference in cases but it should make a difference in deaths since those 1 million vaccinated are the ones most susceptible to death.
 

AlphaJohn

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
14,636
You're so right hey... Lets have a look.

See South Africa's deaths as opposed to cases. The Delta variant again appears significantly less deadly in a largely unvaccinated population.

Aaah so its unscientific, self formed claim, gotcha :thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top