A vaccine is what AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson are.
Pfizer and Moderns are not vaccines. The entire scientist community has lost its marbles.
If I immunise you via mRNA altering your cells, I did not vaccinate you.
Posts
Total:
42
I don’t think you understand how mRNA vaccines work, vaccines, immunology or the English language: it seems.
mRNA vaccines are a substance put into the body to protect them from diseases by producing antibody’s. So by that definition. It’s a vaccination.
If I immunize you by injecting you with something - yea that is vaccinating you by definition.
Also mRNA doesn’t alter your cells, mRNA is one of the final stage transcription products of DNA that helps cellular produce a protein. It’s not in itself genetic material, or something that transcribes into your genome.
So oddly, almost every point you have made is factually wrong.
.
-->
@RationalMadman
Is your contention that Pfizer and Moderna do not produce antibodies? Cause there is no other conceivable word in your own definition that squares with your claim that they are not vaccines.
or the English language: it seems.mRNA vaccines are a substance put into the body to protect them from diseases by producing antibody’s. So by that definition. It’s a vaccination.
Let me give you a clue how English works, a plural is never achieved by adding an apostrophe and an 's' after the singular.
As for the science, I have wanted to understand something specific. What exactly tricks the body's cell into thinking it is infected with a virus and why is this in any way better than genuine vaccination against a harmless non-replicating version of Covid?
The way it appears to work is it tricks your body's cells to take it in, to begin with, then the cell thinks your whole body is under attack, however... How is the body producing the correct antibody if the thing injected isn't actually properly based on Covid Sars like AZ or J&J are?
There is something seriously missing in the methodology, like a secret step or something else. The only way this is different to AZ and J&J is you're not actually being injected with a completely non-replication 'version of' the disease that isn't the disease causer itself but a very close replica. Instead, what is the mRNA that lands on the cell?
As in, how can it be an antigen if it also isn't based on the original disease and then your body is making the correct antibodies that even can defeat future variants?
They never explain this part. Instead, it's as if what's being injected is an ongoing thing that will alter the white blood cells bit by bit, which is why boosters are needed to refine it over time as it loses 'memory' and 'shape' quite rapidly.
How many endless boosters will be needed? I just want to understand because I have never before seen a vaccine for a disease where your dosage is not only twice in the same year but approaching 3 per year if the pace is maintained.
-->
@Double_R
Is your contention that Pfizer and Moderna do not produce antibodies? Cause there is no other conceivable word in your own definition that squares with your claim that they are not vaccines.
What exactly are they? As in what is the mRNA 'antigen' if it's not based on Covid Sars like AZ and J&J are?
you can't get antibodies for something just because of some little protein mRNA replica from a virus, you need the proper strand, fully, as the antigen that your body reacts to.
that is how vaccinating works
-->
@RationalMadman
What exactly are they? As in what is the mRNA 'antigen' if it's not based on Covid Sars like AZ and J&J are?
So your contention is an argument from ignorance.
I don’t know how they work because I haven’t spent my life studying how antibodies are created, I suggest you ask someone who has before claiming it doesn’t work.
What matters is that study after study seems to show that the mRNA vaccines are more effective than the J&J and AstraZeneca. That’s all that matters.
This is from a previous post of mine.
Drew Weissman, MD, PhD, a professor of Infectious Diseases in the Perelman School of Medicine, and Katalin Karikó, PhD, an adjunct associate professor at Penn and a senior vice president at BioNTech, found that mRNA vaccines can not only prompt strong antibody responses to fight off invaders, like COVID-19, but also potent cytotoxic T cell responses.
That’s important because these T cells can kill cancer cells. They just need to be altered or motivated to do it. Think immunotherapy, like checkpoint inhibitors or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy that engineers a patient’s own T cells to find and destroy cancer cells.
“A successful therapeutic cancer vaccine should induce strong T cell responses, particularly with CD8+ T cells, which have a known capacity to kill malignant cells,” said Pardi, who is currently leading studies to better understand mRNA vaccines to treat cancers, along with other diseases. Pardi was also a postdoctoral researcher in Weissman’s lab and a frequent collaborator with him and Karikó. “Therapeutic cancer vaccines would be given to cancer patients with the hope that those vaccine-induced cytotoxic T cells would clear tumor cells.”
One example is an mRNA vaccine that targets proteins called neoantigens on a tumor to fight it. A neoantigen is a new protein that forms on cancer cells when certain mutations occur in tumor DNA.
“It’s a promising group of cancer antigens to keep exploring,” Weissman said
As for the science, I have wanted to understand something specific. What exactly tricks the body's cell into thinking it is infected with a virus
Vaccines don’t “trick the body’s cell into thinking it is infected with a virus”. They expose the body to an antigen similar to a triggering antigen in the real infection that prompts a learned immune response.
and why is this in any way better than genuine vaccination against a harmless non-replicating version of Covid?
It is a genuine vaccination. Not really a “better” mechanism - only different. Where it becomes “better” is the benefits of the technology in the future for the simplicity of development, and for things like possibly reducing the need for live viruses (like polio)
The way it appears to work is it tricks your body's cells to take it in, to begin with,
They don’t “trick” cells to take it in. Cells simply process mRNA automatically. It’s part of the way cells work.
then the cell thinks your whole body is under attack, however... How is the body producing the correct antibody if the thing injected isn't actually properly based on Covid Sars like AZ or J&J are?
Your body produces proteins that we need by taking your DNA, applying an enzyme called RNA polymerase which converts a portion of the DNA - based on special start/stop sequences (I’m.m bit sketchy), into a short sequence of mRNA that represents a single gene. Then, this goes into the ribosome which uses the mRNA as a template to construct the protein (each amino acid has an affinity with a specific combination of 3 base pairs - a codon.
When’s a virus reproduces in your body, it hijacks the cells to replicate in this same way; both the mRNA vaccine and the virus are using the cells machinery to produce spike protein - just the virus does that in a way that also assembled the rest of the virus.
When the body attacks the virus, it finds a unique protein in the virus it can attach to in order to kill it - or to signal other cells that will kill it - the specific unique antigen for Covid is the spike protein.
The body is producing an antigen that attaches to the spike protein of the coronavirus; and all vaccines are triggering that response by including that protein - all that changes is the vector. AZ and J&J have that protein already pre assembled in another type of format. An inactive adinovirus for one, and I forget the other. They’ve engineered these inactive viruses to incorporate the spike protein, inject it in; and the body finds and attacks the spike protein. The only difference is the mechanism by which each vaccine delivers the antigen into the body.
There is something seriously missing in the methodology, like a secret step or something else. The only way this is different to AZ and J&J is you're not actually being injected with a completely non-replication 'version of' the disease that isn't the disease causer itself but a very close replica. Instead, what is the mRNA that lands on the cell?
The missing step is between your chair and keyboard
to manufacture a working virus, the virus hijacks your cells machinery, converts it’s rna into individual gene mRNA to manufacture all the different parts of itself, and then assemble the virus until the cell dies.
mRNA vaccine does that but for a single gene that produces a single viral protein - that in itself doesn’t really do much other than trigger the immune response.
As in, how can it be an antigen if it also isn't based on the original disease and then your body is making the correct antibodies that even can defeat future variants?
But it is based on the original disease. The virus would deliver the same mRNA to produce spike protein in an infection.
They never explain this part. Instead, it's as if what's being injected is an ongoing thing that will alter the white blood cells bit by bit, which is why boosters are needed to refine it over time as it loses 'memory' and 'shape' quite rapidly.
I’ve seen this explained all the time. Repeatedly.
Your bodies adaptive response allows it to generate different types of antibody’s that lock onto the spike protein; they can often stick around for a while, sometimes the ability produce those antibodies wanes over time.
How many endless boosters will be needed? I just want to understand because I have never before seen a vaccine for a disease where your dosage is not only twice in the same year but approaching 3 per year if the pace is maintained.
Dunno. Lots of vaccines have multiple shots to build immune response. Cut yourself trying to pleasure yourself again with a rusty pole, you’ll probably get a tetanus booster. Kids get multiple booster shots of various vaccines throughout childhood.
Whether you need a booster is really down to your immune system, and how well the body’s learned response is triggered and how long that response lasts. If you can catch the same virus multiple times - it’s unlikely a vaccine is going to trigger a better response.
Variants play a part too - remember we get a different vaccine each year for flu.
Boosters here are more about trying to maximize immunity because we’re in a pandemic.
The mRNA vaccines produce an excellent initial immunity against the original, alpha and delta - and the effectiveness is dropping off over time - as it is for the other vaccines too.
The mRNA vaccines produce an excellent initial immunity against the original, alpha and delta - and the effectiveness is dropping off over time - as it is for the other vaccines too.
Until March, they haven't adapted the mRNA to omicron, so what's your point?
I am also curious what precisely is this mRNA strand? You are injecting into people's bodies something what will hijack my cells? Sound sketchy...
Why are all the companies except AstraZeneca having absolutely 0 liability? Government sworn to secrecy and paying full lawyer bills, Argentina has military bases as collateral to Pfizer.
Psychopaths, corporations and the same old right-wing tyranny at play.
something what will hijack my cells?
That will hijack their cells*
-->
@FLRW
Then use it for cancer research, no need for a virus.
-->
@Double_R
What matters is that study after study seems to show that the mRNA vaccines are more effective than the J&J and AstraZeneca. That’s all that matters.
Why is that all that matters? Do you know what mRNA hijacking your body's cells can result in in the long run? Not just myocarditis.
-->
@RationalMadman
mNRA technology has been around for decades and has never shown any long term side effects. So yes, we know what it does. It’s just a question of whether you really want to know or if you are for some reason emotionally vested in not knowing.
-->
@Double_R
Why are all the companies except AstraZeneca having absolutely 0 liability? Government sworn to secrecy and paying full lawyer bills, Argentina has military bases as collateral to Pfizer.
-->
@RationalMadman
I don’t know. Do you?
If so, how?
If not, then what does not having an answer tell us?
-->
@Double_R
Until March, they haven't adapted the mRNA to omicron, so what's your point?
You said:
I just want to understand because I have never before seen a vaccine for a disease where your dosage is not only twice in the same year but approaching 3 per year if the pace is maintained.
That part of my post - as a whole - address this.
I am also curious what precisely is this mRNA strand?
It’s a strand of mRNA that produces the virus spike protein. You should know this, as it’s plastered over almost every single article about them.
You are injecting into people's bodies something what will hijack my cells? Sound sketchy..
mRNA doesn’t hijack your cells - viruses hijack your cell. mRNA just goes into your cell, and is converted into a protein.
Why are all the companies except AstraZeneca having absolutely 0 liability? Government sworn to secrecy and paying full lawyer bills, Argentina has military bases as collateral to Pfizer.
Just throwing out a set of facts, with no context; no argument, and no encompassing justification and pretending that it indicates malfeasance- is the took of to the idiot conspiracy theorist who is unable to think critically about their position.
Why is that all that matters? Do you know what mRNA hijacking your body's cells can result in in the long run? Not just myocarditis.
Yes we actually do.
mRNA does absolutely nothing to your body at all. It’s in there constantly producing proteins, chilling out in the ribosome every single cell in your body. It how your body makes proteins.
The presence of mRNA - does absolutely jack-sh*t, and it’s frankly ignorance and stupidity that overhypes it as some terrible technology.
The question is primarily, what damage does the spike protein do to the body; it seems a low risk of myocarditis is one - although a lower risk than from Covid itself.
But the simple truth of things is that once something is out of your body, it can’t do any more damage to you.
Given the billions of shots of mRNA vaccine given around the world for over a year - anything bad that could have happened by now - would have.
I hope that you are right, either way I'll play it safe myself and stick to the oldschool vaccine method ones.
Why are all the companies except AstraZeneca having absolutely 0 liability? Government sworn to secrecy and paying full lawyer bills, Argentina has military bases as collateral to Pfizer.Just throwing out a set of facts, with no context; no argument, and no encompassing justification and pretending that it indicates malfeasance- is the took of to the idiot conspiracy theorist who is unable to think critically about their position.
Again; just throwing a set of facts out, not linking it together with any argument, justification or coherent thinking, is just intellectually lazy conspiratorial thinking.
Any idiot can throw out a set of facts that seem to be indicative of malfeasance when they don’t have to actually argue it is.
Again; just throwing a set of facts out, not linking it together with any argument, justification or coherent thinking, is just intellectually lazy conspiratorial thinking.Any idiot can throw out a set of facts that seem to be indicative of malfeasance when they don’t have to actually argue it is.
Let's rewind to what you replied to.
Why are all the companies except AstraZeneca having absolutely 0 liability? Government sworn to secrecy and paying full lawyer bills, Argentina has military bases as collateral to Pfizer.
This is what you said I had no proof of.
This is what you said I had no proof of.
What I said was:
Just throwing out a set of facts, with no context; no argument, and no encompassing justification and pretending that it indicates malfeasance- is the took of to the idiot conspiracy theorist who is unable to think critically about their position.
I don’t know if it’s reading comprehension or critical thinking that is failing you here: the issue here is not that what you’re saying isn’t true - in both cases I stated they were facts.
The problem is that you’re taking those facts and drawing stupid and hyperbolic conclusions from them, without making an argument, without justifying them; relying on this inanely stupid strategy have that foaming at the mouth conspiracists have whereby you just throw out a set of facts, and pretend as if they prove something - without going to the actual effort of actually proving it.
I’m not arguing with the things you’re saying are not true: but that you’re stupidly drawing wild and silly conclusions without any critical thinking or rational analysis; and presenting them in a rhetorical style in which any stupid person without ability to think critically can make sound convincing.
Why are all the companies except AstraZeneca having absolutely 0 liability? Government sworn to secrecy and paying full lawyer bills, Argentina has military bases as collateral to Pfizer.
just throwing a set of facts out, not linking it together with any argument, justification or coherent thinking, is just intellectually lazy conspiratorial thinking.
Any idiot can throw out a set of facts that seem to be indicative of malfeasance when they don’t have to actually argue it is.
What any idiot can do is spam somebody else's thread because they're angry and want to feel superior.
Given rear the things that you’ve said thus far in this thread, which I have corrected, are unbearably ignorant; I really don’t need to spam here to feel superior - just read.
The problem though is that no amount of repetition makes your insinuated accusations valid, coherent, or reasonable.
As I said, it’s a common strategy of the “Jewish space laser”, and “Satan worshipping pedophiles run the government” brigade.
Cite a number of facts without context, without any explanation, no analysis, justification, argument, etc: nothing to contextualize the facts; but you ask a question that implies a conclusion you are unable to justify and which shifts the burden of proof.
I would normally suggest that you’re better than this poorly reasoned nonsense; but at this point, I suspect that you’re not.
Strawmanning on top of blindly repeating, fair enough.
For anyone who can actually read and reply to things without gaslighting, please refer to my post at the end of the page prior to this one.
A clear-cut question is asked with some sources to back it up.
I'm looking for somebody to answer me instead of saying nonsense and copy-pasting it to avoid answering the question.
It’s not a straw man. A straw man is where I misrepresent your position. I’m not doing that.
I’m pointing out you’re engaging in a particularly low brow form of conspiratorial rhetoric in lieu of trying to justify your position.
You’re cherry picking data that looks bad, presenting it without context, and leaving the conclusions vague and implied; whilst making no attempt to present a justified conclusion based on the complete picture.
This isn’t a coherent thread - I mean you’ve already ignored all the science presented so far - it’s just conspiratorial thinking: a Rorsarch test using news articles rather than ink blots.