fides' Jack's Mega Anti-Vax Thread

[mommas_boy]

On 10/15/2022 at 6:43 PM, fides' Jack said:

This news is a couple weeks old now.  

"This removes the entire legal basis for the COVID passport"

https://gloria.tv/post/hm7WxoPCdE47613rh1eC4TBJJ

 

And from the Croatian representatives who want to know when Pfizer execs are going to be prosecuted, and their European contracts terminated:

Why did Australia order 255 million covid shot doses for 26 million people?

Other countries show even more outlandish numbers.  In December of 2020 (as the shots were coming out), Canada had secured 400 million doses, for 37 million people.

Perhaps because COVID shots last only a short period of time, and because people avoid getting them? Therefore, in order to administer 26 million doses, they must purchase ten times that amount over a period of time (ie. not all at once) in order to have vaccine on hand when people become convinced to head in for their next dose. They are calculating in waste, and they can't buy doses individually; they have to buy doses by the vial. Once the vial has been made, it has an expiration date. They apparently know that on average, only a tenth of a vial is being used before the vial expires. Look at how consistent that 10% number is between Australia and Canada; that's pretty telling.

 

11 hours ago, little2add said:

Vaccinated people now make majority of COVID deaths in US: Report

For the first time since the beginning of the pandemic in early 2020, a majority of Americans dying from Covid were at least partially vaccinated, according to the new analysis of federal and state data.

In a startling revelation, a Washington Post analysis has found that more vaccinated people are now dying of the Covid disease and 58 per cent of coronavirus deaths in August in the US "were people who were vaccinated or boosted".

For the first time since the beginning of the pandemic in early 2020, a majority of Americans dying from Covid were at least partially vaccinated, according to the new analysis of federal and state data.

"We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated," said Kaiser Family Foundation vice president Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis on behalf of the Washington Post.

 

This is because a virus is an evolving organism. There is no one COVID. There never has been. Each individual, microscopic virion is its own organism with its own (potentially) unique RNA and surface proteins. Had everyone been vaccinated immediately (even if people were willing, this would still have been a logistical nightmare, especially in third-world countries which represent a sizable reservoir of virus), the virus would have stopped mutating and evolving. Unfortunately, some people chose not to get vaccinated, and others could not be vaccinated due to logistical constraints. The result is that the virus has and will continue to mutate. Some strains will be more or less resistant to immunities acquired from vaccines or prior infections.

I'm not sure if this is the goal of @little2add in posting this, but for anyone to use data such as these in order to conclude that "therefore vaccines are ineffective" is disingenuous. For in this instance, it was those who were not vaccinated who enabled the evolution and spread of mutated variants.

[little2add]

9 hours ago, mommas_boy said:

disingenuous

 

[little2add]

 

 

14 hours ago, mommas_boy said:

"therefore vaccines are ineffective"

the most heavily targeted demographic for this vaccine are elderly and still dropping dead because of an ineffective vaccine, thus the chart showing the vaccinated elderly demographic deaths are more than for unvaccinated is misleading.

 

[mommas_boy]

5 hours ago, little2add said:

 

Facts, without context.

1 hour ago, little2add said:

 

 

the most heavily targeted demographic for this vaccine are elderly and still dropping dead because of an ineffective vaccine, thus the chart showing the vaccinated elderly demographic deaths are more than for unvaccinated is misleading.

 

Thank you for providing more context with the video.

I had some difficulty understanding the bolded text at first until I watched the video. For the benefit of subsequent readers who may not watch the video, there is a chart making its way around the internet that is being used to say that vaccines aren't effective because more people are dying with the vaccine than without it. The way that the video puts it, this is because most people who are dying are older, and most of the people who are older are vaccinated because they are more at-risk.

One small favor to add, please, @little2add. You quoted me as saying "therefore vaccines are ineffective". I did say that, but had quite a bit more context in my post that made it clear that I did not espouse that position. You removed all of that context in your post, and it made it seem to a subsequent reader that I did espouse that position. In the future, when quoting me, if you could please include enough of my quote to make my position clear in your post, I would appreciate it; in this case, something like, "for anyone to use data such as these in order to conclude that 'therefore vaccines are ineffective' is disingenuous". Thanks!

Edited November 27, 2022 by mommas_boy
changed "the full quote" to "enough of my quote"

[little2add]

22 hours ago, mommas_boy said:

please

[Didacus]

On 1/28/2021 at 7:15 PM, Peace said:

First, the vaccine is the antichrist, now Bill Gates created it to destroy mankind.

What's next? Pinky and the Brain are gonna use it to take over the world?

There were no greedy people in communist Russia? Well. That is news to me.

shall Brain finally achieve his life-long goal!?

Stay tuned!

[tinytherese]

On 7/10/2022 at 12:03 PM, Didacus said:

I would more take a chance on the cmmon cold than experimental vaccines that modifies my body permanently.

 

According to Dr. Paul Offit, it's impossible for mRNA vaccines to change your DNA.

 

Here's a response to the claim about the Pfizer vaccine. (You have to scroll down a ways to find it on the page, so I copied and pasted this part.)

https://www.chop.edu/news/feature-article-no-study-does-not-prove-what-you-think-it-does-part3 

No. This study does not prove that RNA from the COVID-19 vaccine changes DNA.

Study

Alden M, Falla FO, Yang D, et al. Intracellular reverse transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 in vitro in human liver. Current Issues in Molecular Biology. 2022;44(3):1115-26.

Brief summary

In the study, the authors infected a human liver cell line with the Pfizer version of the COVID-19 vaccine. They used different concentrations of the vaccine and multiple timepoints to measure:

Conversion of RNA into DNA in the cells

The quantity of a genetic tool called LINE-1

The presence of DNA sequences similar to the vaccine RNA in the nuclei of these cells

Misconception

Some pointed to this paper as proof that COVID-19 vaccines alter DNA. However, this is not an appropriate conclusion from this paper for several reasons:

Perhaps most importantly, this experiment was done on cells being grown in a lab. Said another way, it was an “in vitro” experiment. In vitro experiments are done all the time and they are important for providing information and clues as to what might happen in a person (“in vivo”). However, to make a conclusion about what is happening in people, one must have some evidence that it is actually happening in people, not just that it might be possible. The authors acknowledged this when they wrote, “At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome. Further studies are needed …” (p. 1122). They go on to suggest two alternative experimental methods for getting more information.

The authors used a cancerous liver cell line. This is important for two reasons; both of which were acknowledged by the authors. First, cancerous cell lines replicate, whereas our liver cells typically are not replicating. As such, even if DNA representing the viral RNA was integrated into the cell, no other cells with the altered DNA would be produced. The authors also pointed out that this cell line has been shown to have genetic and protein expression differences specific to RNA metabolism (p. 1123). This means that what is seen in these cells may not be representative of what would happen in non-cancerous liver cells (or even a different line of cancerous liver cells). Second, they measured LINE-1 activity. Importantly, LINE-1 has been associated with various disease-related conditions, including cancer. It has also been shown to affect immune responses. For these reasons, while the changes related to LINE-1 are interesting, we can’t be sure the effects would be the same in a non-cancerous cell line. The authors also made this point by stating, “The exact regulation of LINE-1 activity in response to BNT162b2 merits further study.” (p. 1123).

Finally, as the authors pointed out, expression of LINE-1 has been shown to increase during viral infections, including with SARS-CoV-2 virus. In fact, some scientists have suggested that integration of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material into human cells could be why some people still test positive by PCR well after they have recovered from their infection. However, it is important to note that more information would be needed to prove this hypothesis as well. The more likely explanation is that the virus is undergoing an incomplete cycle of replication, where the genetic material (RNA) is produced but whole virus particles are not.

Problem with interpretation

Logical fallacy called hasty generalization (It is important to note in this case, that the misconception was not because of the quality of the science or the messaging of the authors, but rather because others took the findings out of context.)

Edited November 29, 2022 by tinytherese

[little2add]

Very enlightening piece.  
thank you for posting 

 

[little2add]

It has been theorized that when Gabriel informed Mary that she was with child she was 12 weeks along.

The heart of a fetus is fully developed by the 10th week of pregnancy.

(if your from Texas, you know that already)

[fides' Jack]

8 hours ago, tinytherese said:

According to Dr. Paul Offit, it's impossible for mRNA vaccines to change your DNA.

And according to actual, unpolitical science, this theory has been debunked.  Not only is it possible, it's been confirmed that it is happening.

The article you linked only dealt with one study, and frankly, the arguments there lack cohesiveness.  For instance, your argument is that: 

8 hours ago, tinytherese said:

According to Dr. Paul Offit, it's impossible for mRNA vaccines to change your DNA.

That's really the position that many have taken.  But the article you quoted doesn't even claim that - it merely claims that one specific study (out of several that have shown that mRNA vaccines can and do change DNA) doesn't prove that they are changing DNA.  Here is the line in the article:

Quote

However, to make a conclusion about what is happening in people, one must have some evidence that it is actually happening in people, not just that it might be possible. 

Clearly even this article is accepting that the study it's arguing against shows that it is possible - even if only in a petri dish.  It's a reaction piece; a reaction against people who were using it to claim that the study proves that the vaccines are changing peoples' DNA. 

I actually agree with the conclusion of the article - the study DOES prove that it's possible.  

Other studies have shown that it's happening.

The other studies, and this one, and the article you linked to, all give evidence that Dr. Paul Offit is wrong. 

But that's not saying much.  For 70 years the science had been settled on the effectiveness of cloth masks in fighting against viruses.  Dr. Fauci, who claimed to embody science, spouted that established science in March of 2020.  Then, magically, 1 month later, reversed his position to the extent that much of the world was required to wear useless masks at all times, then, several months after that, reversed his position again and restated the science, and some states in the US started backing off, then doubled down on masks again 2 weeks later, and has now reversed yet again and backed off the mask position.  

I'm sorry, science does change, but not that frequently.  The science of cloth masks is settled, and they are useless.  Even n95 masks, which were designed specifically for use by doctors around tuberculosis patients, are mostly useless against other viruses.

Therefore, I stand with the doctors who have more prudent positions.  Experimental vaccines should be proven for decades before being administered.  In the past, that was expected.  Thanks largely to Trump, millions of people are now dead because he gave pharmaceutical companies an easy path around the red tape.

https://rumble.com/v1wac7i-world-premier-died-suddenly.html

On 11/26/2022 at 5:21 PM, mommas_boy said:

Unfortunately, some people chose not to get vaccinated, and others could not be vaccinated due to logistical constraints.

Those were the people with stronger moral consciences.  For the vast majority, it was sinful to take the vaccine.  It still is. 

[fides' Jack]

On 11/26/2022 at 5:35 AM, little2add said:

For the first time since the beginning of the pandemic in early 2020, a majority of Americans dying from Covid were at least partially vaccinated, according to the new analysis of federal and state data.

Of course you already know my opinion, but I believe this has been the case since the majority of Americans were vaccinated.  The more accurate statement would be, "For the first time since the beginning of the pandemic in early 2020, even major media companies agree that a majority of Americans dying from Covid were at least partially vaccinated[...]"

[mommas_boy]

7 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

That's really the position that many have taken.  But the article you quoted doesn't even claim that - it merely claims that one specific study (out of several that have shown that mRNA vaccines can and do change DNA) doesn't prove that they are changing DNA.

Again, you are not qualified to read studies.

Please explain the biochemical pathways, complete with the organic chemical mechanism illustrations, by which mRNA is supposed to alter DNA. Don't simply state "a study"; I want words, I want illustrations of molecules, and I want arrows drawn showing where the electrons are moving. Give me the mechanism. For example, the final product will look something like this, but probably A LOT more complicated (since these molecules are tiny in comparison to DNA):

8 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Those were the people with stronger moral consciences.  For the vast majority, it was sinful to take the vaccine.  It still is. 

Please explain precisely how taking the vaccine is supposedly sinful so that I may respond by reducing your argument to absurdity.

[KnightofChrist]

Say what you will, but as far as I can tell this thread is the 7th most viewed of all time for Open Mic.

[mommas_boy]

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Say what you will, but as far as I can tell this thread is the 7th most viewed of all time for Open Mic.

[fides' Jack]

On 11/29/2022 at 5:24 PM, mommas_boy said:

Again, you are not qualified to read studies.

Please explain the biochemical pathways, complete with the organic chemical mechanism illustrations, by which mRNA is supposed to alter DNA. 

No.  I'm not qualified.

Just because I'm not qualified doesn't mean I'm wrong.

It's a stronger argument, in my opinion, to not rely on the official political stance that the vaccines do not alter DNA, simply because the official position is not trustworthy, than to say that it's more believable because they are more qualified.

The qualifications argument is now rubbish.  It was rubbish the moment they advocated for baby murder.  It was rubbish the moment they advocated for gay marriage.  It was rubbish the moment they advocated for transsexualism and transgenderism.

They (the "official science") are not trustworthy.  Nor are they truly scientists.

Believing them over the truth just because they have "qualifications" is breaking the first commandment by worshipping the false idol of "science", and is ultimately an argument from authority, which is meaningless.

12 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Say what you will, but as far as I can tell this thread is the 7th most viewed of all time for Open Mic.

In fairness, this thread is literally a dozen threads combined.