Originally posted by jaden_2.0
[B]Imagine if anecdotes were used for everything. My cousin's budgie's auntie's owner's mum fell off a bridge. Bridges are dangerous and should be banned.
A completely bizarre and irrelevant comparison.
[quote They're not trial phase. This is false. Emergency Use Authorisation does not equal still in trial. They are within what's known as their estimated study completion date which is Jan 2023. They completed phase III trials in in 2020. [/quote]
https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/coronavirus-and-your-health/coronavirus-vaccine-trials
I'm sorry they are still under clinical trial. You cannot roll out a vaccine in 6 months and expect there to be long term data studies. They are not proven to be safe and effective
Astrazeneca isn't making any money from the vaccine. They are selling theirs at cost price and their price dropped because of that decision. Only in the last few days have they began making supply deals in which they will make any profit. [quote]They are still making profit.
[quote] t is a vaccine by definition. You just falsely believe it doesn't meet the criteria because you don't believe its effective at all. It is.
Look up what a traditional vaccine is. Just because you stick a needle in your arm doesn't make it a vaccine. They have changed the definition such that a vaccine now merely “stimulates the bodies immune response against a disease”. Words from Dr Mike Yeadon.
Call it whatever you wish it doesn't really matter to me. What matters is its safe, and there hasn't been enough time to find that out.
There's no evidence the jab is effective. Look at Israel and tell me how it has been effective.
What is a vaccine? Dr Mike Yeadon:A vaccine had held a particular meaning for decades at least.
It’s explicitly the case here that the covid19 “vaccines” didn’t meet the definition of the word.
For all my life, it’s meant the administration of a preparation of killed or weakened infectious disease organism, bringing about immunity to that organism. The effect of that immunity is to prevent development of clinical illness if infected again by that organism. It doesn’t always prevent infection but such infections remain sub-clinical. Vaccines also prevent transmission, because the body of the person with immunity after vaccination will not allow the infectious organism to replicate to any great extent. Finally, the vaccinated person is generally protected against relatives of the organism in question because our immune systems have memorised dozens of structural features of the organism, common to related infections.
Now they’ve changed it such that a vaccine now merely “stimulates the bodies immune response against a disease”.
Sorry. That’s so vague that, on this definition, a vitamin D capsule is a vaccine.
In the end though, the argument isn’t about whether the gene-based preparations are vaccines or not.
Here’s the key point. If they’re vaccines, people automatically ascribe to them characteristics that are typical of all prior vaccines, especially that they’re widely regarded as safe and that the immunity provides tremendous protection against clinical illness.
No wonder they fight so desperately to cling to the V word.
Of course they’re not vaccines. They don’t provide good protection against clinical illness. The original clinical trials results were merely what’s called an “interim analysis” (around 1/3rd of the way through the trial, a normal part of a clinical trial, but what’s NOT normal is to lie, to deceive & pretend those data are “the results”) & the thing measured was NOT severe illness, hospitalisation & death, but only MINOR SYMPTOMS, like a cough or a runny nose.
Almost no one knows that the medicines regulators regard the technology as “genetic therapy”. Explicitly they gave guidance for development of products exactly like this, if the thing to which you’re supposed to become immune is part of a cancer. This is what DNA- & mRNA-“vaccines” were conceived as. And the development requirements are HUGE. Consider the kind of person likely to receive one of these Star Trek style genetic therapies against a cancer. Short life expectancies & failure of other modes of treatment. Nevertheless the regulatory agencies have a long list of requirements & long term obligations for the drug company to meet.
But absurdly, if the thing to which you’re supposed to be come immune is part of an infectious disease miraculously, exactly the same design of product is treated as if it was a “vaccine” of the same mode of action as all previous vaccines.
This is an extremely lightweight set of obligations. The reason they do that is that because prior vaccines are (with notable exceptions) generally considered safe.
Since these agents WORK IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAY, it’s reckless to assign an expectation of good safety to it, merely because they’ve shoehorned the word “vaccine” somewhere into its description / definition.
Evil fools.
So you’re not “anti-Vax” but “anti-badly tested novel technology genetic therapy”
Best wishes
Mike
Dr Mike Yeadon
Ps: apologies for drifting off topic.vaxxed