Would you take a Coronavirus Vaccine

[nlinecomputers]

Well then maybe you should be speaking out loudly against censorship so other doctors could post a rebuttal video to his videos (that are not deleted off youtube) where people can hear both sides of the story. He may or may not be wrong but like I said, in this censored environment I am not going to listen to the popular narrative being fed to me.

People who are committing a CRIME do not get allowed a venue, else the venue itself could be considered an accomplice to the crime. He claimed that he had federal approval. That is like pretending you are a policeman or selling a painting you did yourself and saying it is a Rembrandt.

Definition of FRAUD

deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right; an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

There is a big difference between a difference in Medical opinion and someone who is lying to promote it. If you have to lie. How valid is it? Why would you support it?

 

[alluseridsrejected]

People who are committing a CRIME do not get allowed a venue, else the venue itself could be considered an accomplice to the crime. He claimed that he had federal approval. That is like pretending you are a policeman or selling a painting you did yourself and saying it is a Rembrandt.

Definition of FRAUD

deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right; an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

There is a big difference between a difference in Medical opinion and someone who is lying to promote it. If you have to lie. How valid is it? Why would you support it?

So he has been convicted? Is he still allowed to practice? Or are you slandering him?

 

[nlinecomputers]

So he has been convicted? Is he still allowed to practice? Or are you slandering him?

Whatever dude, if my next-door neighbor is arrested and out on bail for charges of child molestation I'm not going to let him babysit my kids. Legally he may be innocent until proven guilty but common sense says most people don't get arrested without good reason.

Your doctor got recorded on Zoom saying an easy to disprove statement, claiming he had government approval when he didn't have it. His credibility is gone. You can’t slander someone who has been recorded saying it. Just ask Jon Gruden. It's just like those idiot client's who claim they didn't open that virus, when the email logs show they did. Do you really want to be that guy?

 

[alluseridsrejected]

Whatever dude, if my next-door neighbor is arrested and out on bail for charges of child molestation I'm not going to let him babysit my kids. Legally he may be innocent until proven guilty but common sense says most people don't get arrested without good reason.

Your doctor got recorded on Zoom saying an easy to disprove statement, claiming he had government approval when he didn't have it. His credibility is gone. You can’t slander someone who has been recorded saying it. Just ask Jon Gruden. It's just like those idiot client's who claim they didn't open that virus, when the email logs show they did. Do you really want to be that guy?

If that is the game you want to play, I suppose I can too. Fraudci lied to congress, are you still listening to him? I certainly am not. A speaking of someone that should be in prison...

 

[nlinecomputers]

If that is the game you want to play, I suppose I can too. Fraudci lied to congress, are you still listening to him? I certainly am not. A speaking of someone that should be in prison...

First of all, if you are going to use childish names then there is no point in having a discussion.

Did Dr. Fauci lie to Congress? Maybe. If you are talking about the Gain of Function Funding that gets incredibly complicated and it's as likely the Chinese government lied about the research to get funding. And Rand Paul is a total tool who could not speak the truth with a gun pointed to his head. Honestly, we don't have enough real info to make that call and I fully support further investigation.

This link explains a lot about it and doesn't come to full conclusion IMO.

The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement - FactCheck.org

A disagreement between Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci has put $600,000 of U.S. grant money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology back into the spotlight, while making "gain-of-function" research a household term -- all amid calls for more investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

www.factcheck.org

 

[alluseridsrejected]

First of all, if you are going to use childish names then there is no point in having a discussion.

Did Dr. Fauci lie to Congress? Maybe. If you are talking about the Gain of Function Funding that gets incredibly complicated and it's as likely the Chinese government lied about the research to get funding. And Rand Paul is a total tool who could not speak the truth with a gun pointed to his head. Honestly, we don't have enough real info to make that call and I fully support further investigation.

This link explains a lot about it and doesn't come to full conclusion IMO.

The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement - FactCheck.org

A disagreement between Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci has put $600,000 of U.S. grant money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology back into the spotlight, while making "gain-of-function" research a household term -- all amid calls for more investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

www.factcheck.org

So then it is ok for you to slander and insult a doctor but not me. Got it. And last I heard Zelenko was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. The man has a long list of achievements.

 

[NviGate Systems]

Can someone summon Kitten Kong? Sadly, I think this thread has evolved into something else. Yes or No answers will suffice.

Not trying to be smart but I think that's the only way it will be civil.

 

[nlinecomputers]

So then it is ok for you to slander and insult a doctor but not me. Got it. And last I heard Zelenko was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. The man has a long list of achievements.

You can’t slander someone who has news reports about himself https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...622456-8af2-11ea-ac8a-fe9b8088e101_story.html

I didn't call your point about Dr. Fauci slander nor did I fully disagree with you. I just asked you not use insulting nicknames. I addressed Dr. Zelenko by name I didn't twist his name into a cheap insult. Lying about FDA approval does much to undermine one's credibility. Not going to change my mind about that.

 

[britechguy]

I just don't get how anyone, and I do mean anyone, can believe that all the major public health organizations across the world are "in cahoots" trying to pull a fast one in regard to Covid. It does go beyond straining credulity.

I'll also add that being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, noble though that prize is, has no connection to expertise in the medical field. Anyone can win the Nobel Peace Prize that the committee feels deserves it. It's not about science, and never was.

And I will summon @Kitten Kong so he can make his own judgment about the continuation of this topic.

 

[nlinecomputers]

I don't understand how people can object to the vaccine which has had considerable research, rushed emergency status notwithstanding, will lock in on Doctors who are just grabbing drugs off the shelf and throwing them at patients and calling it good. If you really have a problem with the vaccine because of the lack of long term testing then don't accept any of the treatments either. You need to pass on antibody treatments, remdesivir, baricitinib, and all the other treatments. And **** like Ivermectin is obviously out.

 

[britechguy]

has had considerable research

And that's it, right there. The vaccines used for Covid are only "new" in regard to the specific tweaking to create the spike protein "shells" specific to Covid. And that technology will be used for decades to come.

I trust subject matter experts in any given area and any consensus from same where there are gaps in the data set(s), and there have been plenty of instances where not 100% of everything is known at a given point in time.

The recommendations of world public health organizations with regard to Covid have changed, and may change again, as data continues to pour in. But one thing that hasn't changed, unsurprisingly, is the global agreement that vaccines are, by far, the best thing that any individual can do to protect their own health and the health of those around them.

And, even with emergency authorizations involved, can anyone think that the numbers of individuals vaccinated worldwide, and over the time the effort has been going on, do not form a statistically valid sample size (bigger than any study) and that what has been observed in those vaccinated isn't both reliable and valid? If you can harbor doubts, then, truly, there is no amount of research or preponderance of evidence that could convince you. You are immune to facts, logic, and reason.

 

[alluseridsrejected]

I just don't get how anyone, and I do mean anyone, can believe that all the major public health organizations across the world are "in cahoots" trying to pull a fast one in regard to Covid. It does go beyond straining credulity.

I'll also add that being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, noble though that prize is, has no connection to expertise in the medical field. Anyone can win the Nobel Peace Prize that the committee feels deserves it. It's not about science, and never was.

And I will summon @Kitten Kong so he can make his own judgment about the continuation of this topic.

First I would like to add that I do not in any way feel personally attacked by nlinecomputers. I think we just disagree. If he feels I attacked him personally, then I apologize to him and everyone here.

There are some great doctors in my list. And the attacks against any doctors that disagree are a big reason I do not go along narrative.

We were all told by the media and the authorities that these mRNA vaccines were not gene therapy. Many doctors went on record in agreement and nearly all of them I heard said they were not gene therapy because the vaccines do not change the DNA. However there are many forms of gene therapy other than direct DNA editing. Peer reviewed science clearly says these vaccines ARE gene therapy. By most generally accepted definitions, a GMO is any organism/person that has received gene therapy. Just one of many places I have found, but this one says it most clearly:

Gene therapy avenues and COVID-19 vaccines

However, these mRNA vaccines, which have been developed and approved within a few months, signify a breakthrough in the field of gene therapy, which has battled to achieve ordinary acknowledgement due to a large number of sceptical and conservative scientists and other claimed safety and translational concerns.

If these vaccines are not gene therapy as the media said then how exactly were the vaccines "a breakthrough in the field of gene therapy"? Why in the world are you not outraged we were lied to? What else were we lied to about? How in the world can you trust the medical agencies paid for by big pharma when they obviously lied about this? What else are they lying about? Why are you not outraged to find this out? How can you not understand why someone would not want to turn themselves into a walking/talking GMO experiment?

 

[britechguy]

I shall simply say that I disagree, fundamentally, with any characterization of mRNA vaccine technology as "gene therapy."

Gene therapy relies on direct alteration of genetic material in a way that these vaccines do not. They trigger an immune response by convincing the immune system it's seeing something it's really not. They're "decoys" for the real thing that teach the immune system to recognize, attack, and neutralize the real thing - a viral disease vector.

That's just not gene therapy in any meaningful sense of the phrase. And if we cannot agree on a shared definition of what gene therapy is then we do have a irreconcilable differences.

I don't think that the things you say are being lied about are, indeed, actually being lied about. I recognize scientific consensus when I see it.

 

[alluseridsrejected]

I shall simply say that I disagree, fundamentally, with any characterization of mRNA vaccine technology as "gene therapy."

Gene therapy relies on direct alteration of genetic material in a way that these vaccines do not. They trigger an immune response by convincing the immune system it's seeing something it's really not. They're "decoys" for the real thing that teach the immune system to recognize, attack, and neutralize the real thing - a viral disease vector.

That's just not gene therapy in any meaningful sense of the phrase. And if we cannot agree on a shared definition of what gene therapy is then we do have a irreconcilable differences.

I don't think that the things you say are being lied about are, indeed, actually being lied about. I recognize scientific consensus when I see it.

I think I will go with what the peer reviewed science says and it's "breakthrough in the field of gene therapy". see:

Gene Therapy Leaves a Vicious Cycle

Look under the section titled "Gene Therapy and Its Kinds". These mRNA vaccines ARE clearly a form of gene therapy.

the European Medicines Agency (EMA) describes gene therapy medicinal product (GTMP) as a “biological medicinal product that contains an active substance which contains or consists of a recombinant nucleic acid used in or administered to humans to regulate, repair, replace, add or delete genetic sequences and its therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic effect relates directly to the recombinant nucleic acid sequence it contains, or to the product of genetic expression of this sequence” (32, 34). Typically, DNA, mRNA, siRNA, miRNA, and anti-sense oligonucleotides are the genetic materials used for therapeutic delivery into a defective target cell or tissue to restore a specific gene function or turn off a gene responsible for disease or disorder development (35).

We were absolutely lied to! It is gene therapy!

 

[Sky-Knight]

@alluseridsrejected

the European Medicines Agency (EMA) describes gene therapy medicinal product (GTMP) as a “biological medicinal product that contains an active substance which contains or consists of a recombinant nucleic acid used in or administered to humans to regulate, repair, replace, add or delete genetic sequences and its therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic effect relates directly to the recombinant nucleic acid sequence it contains, or to the product of genetic expression of this sequence” (32, 34). Typically, DNA, mRNA, siRNA, miRNA, and anti-sense oligonucleotides are the genetic materials used for therapeutic delivery into a defective target cell or tissue to restore a specific gene function or turn off a gene responsible for disease or disorder development (35).

The mRNA vaccines do not regulate, repair, replace, add or delete genetic sequences. They're simply a hormone that convinces cells to produce a waste protein the immune system has to clean up. That's not a genetic modification anymore than using a squirt bottle to train a puppy.

 

[nlinecomputers]

Gene Therapy Leaves a Vicious Cycle

Look under the section titled "Gene Therapy and Its Kinds". These mRNA vaccines ARE clearly a form of gene therapy.

HUH. This document was written 2 years before Covid even existed. This has nothing to do with the vaccine.

We were all told by the media and the authorities that these mRNA vaccines were not gene therapy. Many doctors went on record in agreement and nearly all of them I heard said they were not gene therapy because the vaccines do not change the DNA. However there are many forms of gene therapy other than direct DNA editing. Peer reviewed science clearly says these vaccines ARE gene therapy. By most generally accepted definitions, a GMO is any organism/person that has received gene therapy. Just one of many places I have found, but this one says it most clearly:

Gene therapy avenues and COVID-19 vaccines

With respect, you have completely misunderstood this. What this is saying is that the new vaccines use methods also used by Gene Therapy treatments to deliver the package to the cells. In Gene Therapy, it delivers DNA to the cell nucleus in order to make changes in the DNA, to do things like eliminating the ability to become a cancer cell. In the vaccine, it delivers a protein spike, in essence, a beheaded virus so that the body is stimulated to produce antibodies designed to attack the real virus that has full virus cells. Think of it like a medicine encased in a capsule. The capsule lets the medication survive until the capsule is broken down allowing the medication to be released in the intestines instead of being damaged by the acids in the stomach.

First I would like to add that I do not in any way feel personally attacked by nlinecomputers. I think we just disagree. If he feels I attacked him personally, then I apologize to him and everyone here.

No worries here. I disagree with you but there isn't any attacking. People need to chill out. If you don't like the disagreement find another topic to read.

 

[britechguy]

I disagree with you but there isn't any attacking.

And there is a difference, and a distinct difference, between attacking a person - taking cheap shots - and attacking ideas.

I would describe the responses to the claim that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy as a legitimate attack on an illegitimate idea. And that illegitimate idea is the direct result of a misreading of the material cited. Whether that misreading is intentional or not, the idea being promulgated because of it is, quite simply, factually wrong. If we call out factual incorrectness, and with vigor, and have that called a personal attack then something is very wrong.

 

[alluseridsrejected]

HUH. This document was written 2 years before Covid even existed. This has nothing to do with the vaccine.

That has nothing to do with whether or not the media lied. This paper clearly shows that there are numerous forms of gene therapy. mRNA genetic materials used for therapeutic delivery are one of them. The older the date this was known within peer review, the worse the media's lies are since it should be well established long ago that direct DNA modifications are but only one form of gene therapy.

With respect, you have completely misunderstood this. What this is saying is that the new vaccines use methods also used by Gene Therapy treatments to deliver the package to the cells. In Gene Therapy, it delivers DNA to the cell nucleus in order to make changes in the DNA

No, with respect, you are totally missing my point and what the paper says that details the numerous forms of gene therapy. What you are saying is the opposite of what this science says. I am not claiming it delivers DNA to the cell nucleus or makes direct changes to the DNA. Sure that is ONE form of gene therapy. But only one of them. That is the point. What I am saying is the media lied by claiming these vaccines are not gene therapy "because the do not alter your DNA". The mere fact they do not deliver DNA to the cell nucleus does not mean they aren't gene therapy. It only means they are not the DNA form of gene therapy. The vaccines use synthetic mRNA as the genetic material for therapeutic delivery into the cell. They are clearly still gene therapy and the peer reviewed science says so. The media clearly lied! Censorship really sucks!

To quote again from the first paper above:

these mRNA vaccines, which have been developed and approved within a few months, signify a breakthrough in the field of gene therapy, which has battled to achieve ordinary acknowledgement due to a large number of sceptical and conservative scientists and other claimed safety and translational concerns.

Wow, that is just a scary statement right there and deserves repeating. I think I will let this rushed to market breakthrough gene therapy all settle out a little while longer.

 

[alluseridsrejected]

Moderna's own filings with the SEC say the FDA defines their vaccines as gene therapy:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017/mrna-20200630.htm

Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism. In addition, because no product in which mRNA is the primary active ingredient has been approved, the regulatory pathway for approval is uncertain. The number and design of the clinical trials and preclinical studies required for the approval of these types of medicines have not been established, may be different from those required for gene therapy products, or may require safety testing like gene therapy products. Moreover, the length of time necessary to complete clinical trials and to submit an application for marketing approval for a final decision by a regulatory authority varies significantly from one pharmaceutical product to the next, and may be difficult to predict.

How much more proof do you need we were lied to? Again, I am not saying it modifies your DNA. I am saying it is a gene therapy product which is in direct conflict with what we were told. It simply can not be made more clear!

 

[alluseridsrejected]

COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates Show Gene Therapy is a Viable Strategy

November 17, 2020, the American Society of Gene + Cell Therapy (ASGCT) announced “COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates Show Gene Therapy Is a Viable Strategy,” noting that:

Two COVID-19 vaccine trials, both of which use messenger RNA (or mRNA) technology to teach the body to fight the virus, have reported efficacy over 90 percent.

These findings, announced by Moderna on Nov. 16 and by Pfizer and its partner BioNTech on Nov. 9 … demonstrate that gene therapy is a viable strategy for developing vaccines to combat COVID-19.

Both vaccine candidates use mRNA to program a person’s cells to produce many copies of a fragment of the virus. The fragment then stimulates the immune system to attack if the real virus tries to invade the body.