- Joined
- Jan 19, 2021
no one cares, anime avatard
Pastadome - A place for friends who are being too friendly in other threads.
- Thread starter It's HK-47
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
When society collapses, which secret desire you've been suppressing all these years living in a polite society are you excited to unleash?Ya, telling you people that relying on nigger cattle or RINO's to do what needs to be done is foolish is TOTALLY doomposting.
You're right. keep doing that. It's been working SO well.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2021
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
I want them to work. mRNA technology opens up the potential for all sorts of treatments that simply weren't considered possible a few years ago. Cures for cancers, solving the telomere shortening problem, potentially curing alzheimers, all sorts of things. I just happen to think that this particular use of the technology is going to backfire massively and threaten all future potential uses, because it was rushed out, pooorly tested, and is already showing significant side effects. We have no idea of its long-term effects because it hasn't been studied much, but what studies have been performed in the past do not bode well for this particular use-case. The problem is, you're so stuck up your own backside that you can't understand the nuance of "I don't trust this particular treatment because it introduces the most pathegenic part of corona into the body in high doses" vs "antivaxxer magachud". Because you're a cretin.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
What significant side effects? How was it poorly tested? What testing would suffice for you?
No vaccine has ever shown side effects after 2 months... what makes you think this one is different?
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
@Hollywood Hulk Hogan the quote bug strikes again
One of the issues that would be uncovered in such a study is whether the vaccine is fully sterilising, or whether it is "leaky". A non-sterilising vaccine would generally be considered a non-starter, given it would create selective pressure on the virus towards being both more infective and more virulent. This is actually one of the reasons an effective coronavirus vaccine has never been developed before now: they don't create sterilising immunity, simply because coronavirus, mutate too rapidly.
The side effects reported for the mRNA treatments so far appear to mirror the effects of a severe coronavirus infection: vascular inflammation, with accompanying microclotting, including inflammation of the heart, lungs, and other highly vascularised organs. The subsequent effects of that inflammation differs depending on where a significant load of cells are infected, but can be as varied as brain fog, liver disease, heart inflammation and heart attack, bowel complains and diseases, and so on. They are reported as rare, especially when considered separately (ignoring inflammation as the underlying cause), but their incidence is significantly higher than would be expected if the vaccine were as safe at is claimed.
The reason for this is because the proteins that are being generated to prime the immune system are the same proteins that cause all of the severe outcomes in a coronavirus infection.
Initially, it was claimed that the mRNA strands would remain in the injection site, where they would prime the immune system without causing risk. It subsequently became clear that the mRNA strands are transported around the body by the lymphatic system and end up in the blood stream, where they enter vascular cells. The spike proteins express on the surface of those cells and cause inflammation of the surrounding cells. The body's reaction to the spike proteins generates further inflammation and damage. There may also be additional autoimmune issues resulting from the immune system interpreting the cells, now expressing these viral spike proteins, as foreign bodies to be attacked, but that is still undergoing study.
Of course, if these treatments had undergone proper trials, that study would be taking place in a controlled environment, and these issues would have been uncovered before widespread distribution.
Vaccines normally take 10 or 12 years to get into production, with somewhere around four to six of those years consisting double-blind human trials. The reason trials take so long is to ascertain whether there are any immediate or long-term side-effects of the vaccine, whether the efficacy carries through from animal models to humans, whether there are unanticipated additional benefits (you never know what might happen), and whether the vaccine immune response will last as long as hoped. These mRNA treatments were rushed out in under a year, meaning that none of this has been studied properly, or at all.
One of the issues that would be uncovered in such a study is whether the vaccine is fully sterilising, or whether it is "leaky". A non-sterilising vaccine would generally be considered a non-starter, given it would create selective pressure on the virus towards being both more infective and more virulent. This is actually one of the reasons an effective coronavirus vaccine has never been developed before now: they don't create sterilising immunity, simply because coronavirus, mutate too rapidly.
The side effects reported for the mRNA treatments so far appear to mirror the effects of a severe coronavirus infection: vascular inflammation, with accompanying microclotting, including inflammation of the heart, lungs, and other highly vascularised organs. The subsequent effects of that inflammation differs depending on where a significant load of cells are infected, but can be as varied as brain fog, liver disease, heart inflammation and heart attack, bowel complains and diseases, and so on. They are reported as rare, especially when considered separately (ignoring inflammation as the underlying cause), but their incidence is significantly higher than would be expected if the vaccine were as safe at is claimed.
The reason for this is because the proteins that are being generated to prime the immune system are the same proteins that cause all of the severe outcomes in a coronavirus infection.
Initially, it was claimed that the mRNA strands would remain in the injection site, where they would prime the immune system without causing risk. It subsequently became clear that the mRNA strands are transported around the body by the lymphatic system and end up in the blood stream, where they enter vascular cells. The spike proteins express on the surface of those cells and cause inflammation of the surrounding cells. The body's reaction to the spike proteins generates further inflammation and damage. There may also be additional autoimmune issues resulting from the immune system interpreting the cells, now expressing these viral spike proteins, as foreign bodies to be attacked, but that is still undergoing study.
Of course, if these treatments had undergone proper trials, that study would be taking place in a controlled environment, and these issues would have been uncovered before widespread distribution.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
@teriyakiburns
If you're that terrified of mRNA vaccines, just get one of the conventional ones, like the Johnson and Johnson shot
If you're that terrified of mRNA vaccines, just get one of the conventional ones, like the Johnson and Johnson shot
- Joined
- May 6, 2020
Why not just do the most rational option and wait for a few years to observe how many beta testers croak from it? Then based on the facts, make an informed decision.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Because it's not gonna happen, despite what the voices in your head say
- Joined
- May 6, 2020
Sure it won't, test subject #1977464. Now get back in your cage, it's time for another booster shot.
*adjusts glasses, makes note in clipboard*
"Subject appears agitated. Need to add more mood stabilizing drugs into their water dish."
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Wanna make a wager? I got my shot in February, so if I am still alive in Feb 2023, you owe me $250,000. If I die before then due to the vaccine, I will put you get $250,000 in my will.
- Joined
- May 6, 2020
That's not how science works. We formulate a hypothesis based on currently-known information and then observe if our findings match the hypothesis. It's called the scientific method, look it up.
Now go back to your holding pen until we summon you again, test subject.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
Johnson and Johnson isn't a conventional vaccine. It (like the AZ shot) uses a carrier virus to introduce fragments of viral DNA to the host cells, which instructs the cell to express spike proteins on its surface. The mechanism has a few extra steps (the cell has to deconstruct the DNA and transpose it to RNA rather than just consuming the mRNA directly), but result is the same.
The only conventional vaccines out there are sinovac and sinopharm. Novavax might also count, as it introduces deconstructed viral particles to the immune system, but it will suffer the same problem as the other two: coronaviruses mutate too rapidly.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2021
It's working on Valve Time, ok? They're Coming Soon™. It's physically impossible for me to be wrong, because I completed my GED.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Johnson and Johnson is viral vector, which has been in use for 45 years now. If that's not long-term enough study for you, then I don't know what is. You anti-vaxers just keep moving the goal posts, though.
What? I never said that's the scientific method. Sounds like you know you're wrong because you won't take my wager and get a cool quarter million.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
@Hollywood Hulk Hogan
It's not a moving goalpost, I think we're just using a different meaning for "conventional vaccine", which fine, that's on me. Of course, that little issue allows you to avoid the main thrust of the argument, as you tend to do: the issue is not the vector; the issue is that the all of these treatments are prompting the body to produce the same protein that is the primary cause of severe symptoms in a severe coronavirus infection. This would have been uncovered in testing, if only the vaccines had undergone a proper testing procedure instead of being rushed out in under a year.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Even if they used another mechanism, you guys would still find some other reason for not taking it. You guys just keep moving the goal posts.
And why not take viral vector since you mentioned the mRNA technology as the reason you wouldn't take it? If you're that scared of the spike protein, why are you guys still not taking covid prevention seriously?
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
@Hollywood Hulk Hogan
It's not fear. It's risk assessment.
And given you're still unable to go a single post without throwing an insult or a thought-terminating cliché, while avoiding the actual argument, I think I'll revert back to my original assessment. Cretin.
Die mad.
Yes, if they used another mechanism that resulted in the same outcome - directly introducing the protein responsible for the very worst symptoms of covid directly into the human body - I would not take it. The mechanism isn't the problem, as I've tried to explain multiple times already. The result is the problem.
There are so many assumptions wrapped up in this one sentence that it's not even worth trying to unpack them.
It's not fear. It's risk assessment.
And given you're still unable to go a single post without throwing an insult or a thought-terminating cliché, while avoiding the actual argument, I think I'll revert back to my original assessment. Cretin.
Die mad.
- Joined
- May 6, 2020
Hulk is just angry because he realized he's a test subject and we're the control group/observers.
Don't worry, we intend to honor the memory of those stunning and brave test subjects who sacrificed their lives for the sake of science. Perhaps some kind of tasteful statue or a wall with names.
Don't worry, we intend to honor the memory of those stunning and brave test subjects who sacrificed their lives for the sake of science. Perhaps some kind of tasteful statue or a wall with names.