1 edit
@metal-brain said(not that it will help, but)...there are papers written on the immune response mechanisms of mRNA-based delivery going back to the early 1990's. It's not a new technology. Moderna (founded in 2010) has dozens of others in the works. Cell based studies, animal trials, safety profiles of delivery methods, multiple pre-COVID clinical trials showing efficacy. This technology (which is repeatedly referred to as a vaccine in patents, papers and corporate marketing reports) was poised for rapid development and implementation in the case of a new emergent pathogen.
The gene vaccines are not really vaccines. They are treatments. Mandating them would be like mandating HCQ or ivermectin. Giving them vaccine status was corrupt. Someone should go to prison for it.
Mandating treatments is not constitutional that I am aware of.
RNA clearly elicits potent long-lasting immune responses. Here's a pre-COVID article on the subject, which avoids all the current word vomit politicization: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243
ANd the clinical trial for your reference. >30,000 participants randomly assigned.
Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001). .... Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389
@wildgrass saidI am aware of that. It started out treating cancer which is a wonderful thing. I have never had anything against the technology at all. I think it has a lot of promise for treating cancer and other terminal illnesses.
(not that it will help, but)...there are papers written on the immune response mechanisms of mRNA-based delivery going back to the early 1990's. It's not a new technology. Moderna (founded in 2010) has dozens of others in the works. Cell based studies, animal trials, safety profiles of delivery methods, multiple pre-COVID clinical trials showing efficacy. This technology (w ...[text shortened]... fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. [/quote]
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389
Gene vaccines are not the same application though. You are using them on healthy people and not so healthy people for which it will not make them healthier. Now we know they do not stop the vaccinated from getting the virus and spreading it to others. That makes herd immunity impossible and that makes mandates useless.
It isn't about protecting others anymore. That ship has sailed.
Why are we still debating mandates?
Also, graphene oxide really is in the vaccines. The fact checkers are wrong again.
https://patents.google.com/patent/CN112220919A/en
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidSo...... No mass demonstrations on loss of liberty and freedom ?
You do got it. You would have to. Libs like yourself, you don’t grasp the concept of Choice... you can choose not to go into the place. Now I KNOW you get it.
“...you would do it then?” Are you sure you are not Handy? You messin with us?
That's what you're saying ?
But to take a vaccine in the face of a pandemic of the century, your freedoms are being trampled all over.
What am I to think about you guys ?
That you are collectively out of sorts because the COVID pandemic changed the outcome of an election in 2020 ?
There must have been something more important than fighting the pandemic on your plate ?
Just share with us what's eating at you guys for more than a year now.
Pandemic overblown.
Masks don't work.
Taking vaccines kill more than not taking vaccines.
Anything else I might have missed ??
Oh yes.
God gave Trump to America.
God has plans for America.
Democracy overruled God.
Ouch !!! That's got to sting !! 😘
1 edit
@metal-brain saidVaccinations have been done on healthy people for over 100 years.
I am aware of that. It started out treating cancer which is a wonderful thing. I have never had anything against the technology at all. I think it has a lot of promise for treating cancer and other terminal illnesses.
Gene vaccines are not the same application though. You are using them on healthy people and not so healthy people for which it will not make them health ...[text shortened]... he vaccines. The fact checkers are wrong again.
https://patents.google.com/patent/CN112220919A/en
Why are we still debating mandates?
I feel like a broken record here as I've answered this question many times.
The authority for governments to mandate vaccination is settled constitutional law. It's been debated and revisited many times; a SCOTUS decision from 1905 has withheld many challenges. I'll repeat the quote again and again, directly from SCOTUS opinions. "... it is within the police power of a state to provide for compulsory vaccination.”
@wildgrass saidThe gene vaccines are not vaccines. Vaccines prevent the spread of a virus and gene vaccines do not do that. They do not meet the definition of a vaccine.
Vaccinations have been done on healthy people for over 100 years.Why are we still debating mandates?
I feel like a broken record here as I've answered this question many times.
The authority for governments to mandate vaccination is settled constitutional law. It's been debated and revisited many times; a SCOTUS decision from 1905 has withheld many chal ...[text shortened]... nions. "... it is within the police power of a state to provide for compulsory vaccination.”
If you remember, Fauci said early on that they did not know if the new covid vaccines would stop the spread. For that reason alone they should not have obtained vaccine status. Variants or not we now know the gene vaccines do not stop vaccinated people from spreading the virus.
Herd immunity is impossible. That alone should end this debate.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2
@metal-brain saidWrong. The point of vaccines is to boost immunity against a virus.
The gene vaccines are not vaccines. Vaccines prevent the spread of a virus and gene vaccines do not do that. They do not meet the definition of a vaccine.
Covid vaccines meet that criteria.
2 edits
@metal-brain saidNo, that's not the definition of a vaccine. Court filings don't mention herd immunity, so that's irrelevant. In the interest of public safety, states are legally permitted to mandate vaccinations in the US and companies and the military and schools have been mandating them for a long long time. You can't ignore the history here and pretend like vaccines were just invented and mandates "...are on the way". THey've been here.
The gene vaccines are not vaccines. Vaccines prevent the spread of a virus and gene vaccines do not do that. They do not meet the definition of a vaccine.
If you remember, Fauci said early on that they did not know if the new covid vaccines would stop the spread. For that reason alone they should not have obtained vaccine status. Variants or not we now know the gene va ...[text shortened]... impossible. That alone should end this debate.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2
@wildgrass saidA ‘state’.
Vaccinations have been done on healthy people for over 100 years.Why are we still debating mandates?
I feel like a broken record here as I've answered this question many times.
The authority for governments to mandate vaccination is settled constitutional law. It's been debated and revisited many times; a SCOTUS decision from 1905 has withheld many chal ...[text shortened]... nions. "... it is within the police power of a state to provide for compulsory vaccination.”
@wildgrass said"Court filings don't mention herd immunity, so that's irrelevant."
No, that's not the definition of a vaccine. Court filings don't mention herd immunity, so that's irrelevant. In the interest of public safety, states are legally permitted to mandate vaccinations in the US and companies and the military and schools have been mandating them for a long long time. You can't ignore the history here and pretend like vaccines were just invented and mandates "...are on the way". THey've been here.
Why would that be irrelevant? Your whole argument for mandates is now a house of cards. Herd immunity is impossible, so it isn't about protecting others anymore. It is only about self protection.
The gene vaccines are treatments and nothing more. They do NOT reduce the spread of the virus. If that doesn't matter then HCQ and ivermectin should be considered vaccines. They do the same thing for a lot less money.
@wildgrass saidI suggest you stop wasting your time with MB. In order to save any façade of an argument, he is insisting on the bizarre claim that any vaccine that doesn't offer 100% protection isn't "really" a vaccine. By this definition, of course, there are no vaccines.
Vaccinations have been done on healthy people for over 100 years.Why are we still debating mandates?
I feel like a broken record here as I've answered this question many times.
The authority for governments to mandate vaccination is settled constitutional law. It's been debated and revisited many times; a SCOTUS decision from 1905 has withheld many chal ...[text shortened]... nions. "... it is within the police power of a state to provide for compulsory vaccination.”
I'm sure one of his crank websites told him this but it's utter BS.
Just to help move this along:
"Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease."
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
"Treatment" (medical definition): a. The use of an agent, procedure, or regimen, such as a drug, surgery, or exercise, in an attempt to cure or mitigate a disease, condition, or injury.
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treatment
The COVID19 vaccines attempt, hugely successfully, to protect people from getting the disease. They do not attempt to "treat" it i.e. they are not given to already sick patients to "cure" or mitigate the disease.
Thus, not matter what MB and his nutty websites say, they are vaccines, not treatment.