Well those are definitely all words.I don't know why we're all being stampeded into taking a vaccine that most of us don't need if we're healthy. Trust in the Govt and medical authorities is zero due to the lies and exaggerations over the past year.
Some interesting factoids on the mRNA vaccines.
Clearly, we are in the nascent stages of understanding the complex field of epigenetics. The S1 SarsCov2 spike protein is highly homologous with HERV (human endogenous retrovirus) protein knowns as Syncytin-1. There is the potential for autoimmunity, as the Spike protein antibodies might attack Syncytin-1.
Whilst natural infections are benign and self-limiting for the vast majority of affected people, autoimmune diseases are mostly irreversible. This is even more terrifying with the mRNA treatment.
If the translation of SarsCov2 S1 spike protein persists there is potential to cause amplification of the expression of autoimmunity. As the SGT recipients’ cells are now producing the viral spike proteins, there is the potential for explosion of auto-immune diseases in coming years.
With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?…off-guardian.org
Firstly any lack of trust in the medical authorities has been generated primarily by the same ratlickers who are screaming about how dangerous (they aren’t) these vaccines are - and to be honest the trust remains for the most part as can be demonstrated by the large take up so far of the vaccines. The outpourings of a small, very gobby minority do not speak for the majority.
The bogyman of autoimmune diseases is one that is frequently used by antivaxxers when peddling their nonsense - usually it is the form of trying to convince everyone that there is an explosion of autoimmune diseases and vaccines are the cause. Despite there being no evidence of this, and lots of evidence that it isn’t.
But lets look at the article. Firstly the title
With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, [it isn’t untested - mRNA technology is decades old and used in a number of therapeutics - and why is vaccine in quote marks? only the ratlickers are questioning this with no cause] and safety trials still ongoing, [nope, the primary findings of the Ph3 trials have been published and the vaccine is proven to be safe and efficacious] is it safe to take the shot? [yes] And does it even work?[yes - Ph3 trials and empirical data from Ph4 monitoring prove this] And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk [The IFR for a population like the UK is around 1.15%, source ICL, 29 Oct 2020].
I also note that the mRNA vaccine is only one of a number in use - why are they attempting to portray this as a bogeyman, but painting it as if every vaccine is using this technology?
Okay, lets look at some of the text.
“Both these injections are employing the same technology, synthetic gene therapy (SGT), which is being dispensed to the populace for the first time in human history.”
Okay so this is utter bullshit - gene therapy is one thing, mRNA vaccines are totally different. No alteration of the genes of the recipient takes place.
I am not going to get sidetracked by the PCR false positive fallacy - enough has been written on this crap already I think.
”It is also important to note, despite SarsCov2 virus and the syndrome labelled as Covid being used interchangeably, causation has not been proven as per Koch’s postulates.’“ well Koch’s postulates were disproven when he wrote them, plus they don’t work with vaccines. And causation has been proven - again, it is only in the febrile imagination of the ratlickers that this is not the case. The two titles are only used interchangeably by the non-medical commentators - SARS-CoV-2 is the virus and Covid-19 is the disease. Deliberate misinformation at least.
I won’t go into the IFR - see citation above.
“Dr David Martin, emphasized that this technology does not meet the definition of a traditional vaccine as per the manufacturers’ claims. The trials do not test for reduction in transmission. These therapies do not prevent infection, merely reduction in one or more symptoms.”
Well the trials were to establish the efficacy and they were pretty sure that they would reduce transmission - and all of this is crap. Other vaccines reduce symptoms in the infected and even non-sterilising vaccines can massively stop transmission (polio for example).
“Interestingly, Moderna describes its technology as the “software of life,” not a vaccine“ not they don’t. They use this as an analogy to explain how it works. Another blatant lie.
”Media outlets, politicians, and public health officials have blared the 95% efficacy for both formulations. To the casual observer, this would denote 95% reduction in hospitalizations or deaths. When in fact the 95% is calculated, based upon the “Primary Efficacy Endpoints.””
This is true - to an extent. The UK government was keen to point out the limitations in the data gathered in the trials - of course this was seized upon by the ratlickers. This has been overtaken by emperical data from the Ph4 monitoring that showed a 100% reduction in serious illness and death, plus a massive (67% IIRC) reduction in transmission.
I am not going to go on - this document is so flawed as to be worthless.