@metal-brain saidNo no no no no. Almost everything you wrote here is wrong.
Your claimed her research has nothing to do with mRNA vaccines. What is your source of information?
"While a virus can infect your cells, an mRNA vaccine (which is just a molecule) cannot."
A virus is just a molecule. An mRNA vaccine manipulates your cells to produce a foreign protein. A virus manipulates your cells to produce a foreign protein. They both do about ...[text shortened]... technology to mimic what a virus does with a different protein. That is how that technology evolved.
My source of information is what you posted in the OP. You posted the article. The researcher sourced in the article, in the link you posted, says her research has nothing to do with vaccines.
A virus is not a molecule. A molecule is a molecule. A virus is a virus. These are obviously different things. Vaccines are not infections, nor are they based on infections. Your writing is gibberish.
@wildgrass said"The researcher sourced in the article, in the link you posted, says her research has nothing to do with vaccines."
No no no no no. Almost everything you wrote here is wrong.
My source of information is what you posted in the OP. You posted the article. The researcher sourced in the article, in the link you posted, says her research has nothing to do with vaccines.
A virus is not a molecule. A molecule is a molecule. A virus is a virus. These are obviously different things. Vaccines are not infections, nor are they based on infections. Your writing is gibberish.
Copy and paste the quote and don't omit important parts of it making it out of context.
A virus is a molecule. Complexity has nothing to do with it. The whole tire on your automobile is a molecule. You don't know what you are talking about. You are wrong.
-Removed-"one of the sources cited by the author states that their work on cancer suppressing genes is NOTHING to do with covid vaccines."
Once again, post the source and the excerpt. I am not a mind reader. You said "one of the sources" so which one? Stop playing stupid games!
@metal-brain said
"The researcher sourced in the article, in the link you posted, says her research has nothing to do with vaccines."
Copy and paste the quote and don't omit important parts of it making it out of context.
A virus is a molecule. Complexity has nothing to do with it. The whole tire on your automobile is a molecule. You don't know what you are talking about. You are wrong.
Copy and paste the quote and don't omit important parts of it making it out of context.Divegeester posted the quote on page 1 of this thread. I posted it again on page 3. It is also the first sentence in the MSKCC link in the article you posted at the beginning of this thread. I'm sure you have already read it, and you can find it again and read it there with full context.
A virus is a molecule. Complexity has nothing to do with it. The whole tire on your automobile is a molecule. You don't know what you are talking about. You are wrong.Assuming you meant to use the plural 'molecules' I suppose you're right. All things are made of molecules and some of those things are bad. Since molecules are in vaccines and some molecules are found in harmful things then vaccines are harmful. Did I get that logic right?
Check your own sources before posting junk.
@wildgrass saidAnd here is what he said:Copy and paste the quote and don't omit important parts of it making it out of context.Divegeester posted the quote on page 1 of this thread. I posted it again on page 3. It is also the first sentence in the MSKCC link in the article you posted at the beginning of this thread. I'm sure you have already read it, and you can find it again and read it there wit ...[text shortened]... hen vaccines are harmful. Did I get that logic right?
Check your own sources before posting junk.
"My “source” is one of the quoted “sources” at the foot of your crappy article, which incidentally, is NOT written by a scientist."
Which one? All I ask for is the source. If you or div cannot provide that maybe it is because it is not related to the person he is being critical of. Perhaps you don't even know what div is talking about and are simply repeating his lies.
I don't know any such source exists. Nobody wants to reveal the source. Perhaps div just made it up.
2 edits
@metal-brain saidIt's the source in your reference, sir.
And here is what he said:
"My “source” is one of the quoted “sources” at the foot of your crappy article, which incidentally, is NOT written by a scientist."
Which one? All I ask for is the source. If you or div cannot provide that maybe it is because it is not related to the person he is being critical of. Perhaps you don't even know what div is talking about and a ...[text shortened]... I don't know any such source exists. Nobody wants to reveal the source. Perhaps div just made it up.
Interesting, I think, that propaganda click-bait "MEDICAL SHOCKER" articles like this one are only effective because they do not expect their readers to check the authors' own sources. The Sloan Kettering scientist referred to in the article is Dr. Mayr. She quickly refutes everything written in that article, in the link provided in the article. The real shocker is that people fall for this B.S.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidWhich source?
It's the source in your reference, sir.
Interesting, I think, that propaganda click-bait "MEDICAL SHOCKER" articles like this one are only effective because they do not expect their readers to check the authors' own sources. The Sloan Kettering scientist referred to in the article is Dr. Mayr. She quickly refutes everything written in that article, in the link provided in the article. The real shocker is that people fall for this B.S.
Copy and paste the link for crying out loud. Can't anybody freaking do that?
Here is the true source:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0465-8
Show me where it says what you claim.
@wildgrass said"The Sloan Kettering scientist referred to in the article is Dr. Mayr. She quickly refutes everything written in that article, in the link provided in the article."
It's the source in your reference, sir.
Interesting, I think, that propaganda click-bait "MEDICAL SHOCKER" articles like this one are only effective because they do not expect their readers to check the authors' own sources. The Sloan Kettering scientist referred to in the article is Dr. Mayr. She quickly refutes everything written in that article, in the link provided in the article. The real shocker is that people fall for this B.S.
What is your source of information?
1 edit
@shavixmir saidSome viruses can with mRNA. Can you explain why viruses can and mRNA vaccines cannot? I didn't think so.
No. MRNA vaccines do not cause cancer.
Assertions mean nothing if you cannot explain why. I could teach a parrot to say that. It doesn't mean he can understand what he repeats.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/oncogenic-viruses
@metal-brain saidVaccines don’t cause cancer.
Some viruses can with mRNA. Can you explain why viruses can and mRNA vaccines cannot? I didn't think so.
Assertions mean nothing if you cannot explain why. I could teach a parrot to say that. It doesn't mean he can understand what he repeats.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/oncogenic-viruses
@metal-brain saidNo.
Scientists at Sloan Kettering said so.
https://www.newstarget.com/2021-03-02-scientists-discover-mrna-inactivates-tumor-suppressing-proteins.html
Is it true?