mRNA Therapies Classified as Gene Therapy

@metal-brain said
So you admit there is no conclusive evidence that mRNA vaccines prevent people from getting the virus? That means you can possibly get infected even after vaccination that could very well be a treatment and not a vaccine since there is no conclusive evidence.

https://thevaccinereaction.org/2021/01/no-evidence-covid-19-vaccines-will-block-spread-of-coronavirus/

No doubt people can still get Covid after vaccination, but out of the millions that have been vaccinated how many have gotten it? And those that have, how bad were their symptoms?
I look upon the Covid shots as being like the yearly flu shots, it doesn't mean you won't get the flu, but your chances of contracting it are greatly reduced, and if you do become ill, your symptoms will be greatly reduced.

@dood111 said
No doubt people can still get Covid after vaccination, but out of the millions that have been vaccinated how many have gotten it? And those that have, how bad were their symptoms?
I look upon the Covid shots as being like the yearly flu shots, it doesn't mean you won't get the flu, but your chances of contracting it are greatly reduced, and if you do become ill, your symptoms will be greatly reduced.

Covid 19 is not a virus. SARS2 is the virus.

People can still get SARS2 after vaccination and not get Covid 19.
It is called an asymptomatic carrier of the virus. It is the reason you are supposed to wear a mask even though you have no symptoms. They claim asymptomatic carriers can spread the virus.

Since the mRNA vaccines merely turn people into asymptomatic carriers they can still spread the virus.
That means no herd immunity. People who talk about herd immunity from mRNA vaccines are misinformed. There is no evidence to support it.

@shavixmir said
You don’t even dare answer, for you know that as soon as you give any form of definition I’ll ask you about primer and your argument will fall to pieces.

It’s bad enough you spew forth every conspiracy untruth there is, but the fact you know it’s all lies just makes you really nasty.

A troll of the worst kind.

LOL!
Seriously?

What is a gene based vaccine?

https://www.theverge.com/21562309/pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine-gene-based

I'll play your game. Let's dance.

@no1marauder said
Naturally I admit no such thing nor are any of your claims supported by scientific evidence.

There is no conclusive evidence that mRNA vaccines prevent people from getting the virus. That means you can possibly get infected even after vaccination. There is no conclusive evidence that mRNA vaccines prevent the spread of the virus to others.

That means herd immunity from a mRNA vaccine is a myth. Do you accept that fact or are you in denial of it?

Why are they called gene vaccines?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12667025/

@metal-brain said
There is no conclusive evidence that mRNA vaccines prevent people from getting the virus. That means you can possibly get infected even after vaccination. There is no conclusive evidence that mRNA vaccines prevent the spread of the virus to others.

That means herd immunity from a mRNA vaccine is a myth. Do you accept that fact or are you in denial of it?

Why are they called gene vaccines?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12667025/

You're goalpost moving changing "no evidence" to "no conclusive evidence".

The evidence is sufficiently supported by numerous studies to conclude that the present vaccines are effective (no, not 100% effective - no vaccine is that) in preventing COVID-19. And infection by the virus at all:

"A new CDC study provides strong evidence that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections in real-world conditions among health care personnel, first responders, and other essential workers. These groups are more likely than the general population to be exposed to the virus because of their occupations.

The study looked at the effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections among 3,950 study participants in six states over a 13-week period from December 14, 2020 to March 13, 2021.

Results showed that following the second dose of vaccine (the recommended number of doses), risk of infection was reduced by 90 percent two or more weeks after vaccination. Following a single dose of either vaccine, the participants’ risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 was reduced by 80 percent two or more weeks after vaccination."

" this study evaluated vaccine effectiveness against infection, including infections that did not result in symptoms."

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0329-COVID-19-Vaccines.html

As far as transmission, while scientists, unlike cranks on globalresearch.org, are reluctant to make claims before full experimental results are in, preliminary studies do support the idea that the present vaccines prevent transmission from the vaccinated (who are much less likely to be infected see above) to the non-vaccinated:

" “Vaccines have always decreased transmission. What they should be saying is that the clinical trials were not designed to test for asymptomatic infection, but there is every biological reason in the world to believe that they will reduce asymptomatic transmission.”

There is already evidence to support this, she says. First, when the vaccines were studied in macaque monkeys (during preclinical testing), they did eliminate asymptomatic infection — researchers swabbed the vaccinated macaques’ noses and found little or no virus. Second, the types of antibodies that are stimulated by most systemic vaccines (IgG and IgA) do tend to block viral infection in the nose (and no viral load in the nose most likely translates to no transmission). Finally, when monoclonal antibodies are given to COVID-19 patients, those antibodies reduce the viral load throughout the respiratory tract, including the nose.

The most convincing evidence, though, is just starting to emerge among real-world data. In Israel, where more than 90% of those age 60 and over have been vaccinated, “cases have plummeted in this population,” Gandhi notes. “Not just hospitalizations, which we expected, but cases [asymptomatic infection] as well.” Moreover, data from vaccinated health care workers recently published in the Lancet and preprint servers show reduced rates of asymptomatic infection and low viral loads in the nose when swabbing after vaccination.

“I think that in a few months, we are going to be able to say with certainty that these vaccines not only protect you, they also protect those around you,” Ranney says."

https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/6-myths-about-covid-19-vaccines-debunked

@no1marauder
Don't worry, he will just come out with more ultrarightwingnut sites that seem to support his POV.

@no1marauder said
You're goalpost moving changing "no evidence" to "no conclusive evidence".

The evidence is sufficiently supported by numerous studies to conclude that the present vaccines are effective (no, not 100% effective - no vaccine is that) in preventing COVID-19. And infection by the virus at all:

"A new CDC study provides strong evidence that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are hi ...[text shortened]... d you,” Ranney says."

https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/6-myths-about-covid-19-vaccines-debunked

Here is an excerpt from your CDC link:

"A new CDC study provides strong evidence that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections in real-world conditions among health care personnel, first responders, and other essential workers. These groups are more likely than the general population to be exposed to the virus because of their occupations."

What study? The CDC did not provide any study on that link that I noticed. Where is it? You need to at least prove the study exists.

@sonhouse said
@no1marauder
Don't worry, he will just come out with more ultrarightwingnut sites that seem to support his POV.

Nope. I simply want to know the information is not a lie.
Redfield claimed face masks protect people more than vaccines. He has no evidence of that, but that is how they do things.

I'll bet he comes up with a study that is purely an epidemiological study which is completely worthless. How much do you want to bet?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/fauci-warns-people-who-have-received-both-vaccine-doses-against-dining-out-or-going-to-movies/ar-BB1dWNbq

@metal-brain said
Here is an excerpt from your CDC link:

"A new CDC study provides strong evidence that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections in real-world conditions among health care personnel, first responders, and other essential workers. These groups are more likely than the general population to be exposed to the virus because of their oc ...[text shortened]... ide any study on that link that I noticed. Where is it? You need to at least prove the study exists.

You really are functionally illiterate; try reading the next three paragraphs which I already quoted above.

@no1marauder said
You really are functionally illiterate; try reading the next three paragraphs which I already quoted above.

You really are functionally illiterate.

I asked for the study, not a paragraph that may or may not represent that study. At least show the study exists. Can you do that Mr. Illiterate?

https://www.bitchute.com/video/qR6snBLXtSCS/

@metal-brain said
You really are functionally illiterate.

I asked for the study, not a paragraph that may or may not represent that study. At least show the study exists. Can you do that Mr. Illiterate?

https://www.bitchute.com/video/qR6snBLXtSCS/

Here, moron:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm (" These findings indicate that authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptom status, among working-age adults in real-world conditions." )

Here's some more cited in that study:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.15.21251623v3 (" this study demonstrates their real-world effectiveness in reducing the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity among individuals at highest risk for infection." )

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3790399
("Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that the BNT162b2 vaccine effectively prevents both symptomatic and asymptomatic infection in working age adults" ).

@no1marauder said
Here, moron:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm (" These findings indicate that authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptom status, among working-age adults in real-world conditions." )

Here's some more cited in that study:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.15.212 ...[text shortened]... ne effectively prevents both symptomatic and asymptomatic infection in working age adults" ).

Hey moron. The CDC has a conflict of interest because many of them own vaccine patent rights. Who funded the study?

"Under real-world conditions, mRNA vaccine effectiveness of full immunization (≥14 days after second dose) was 90% against SARS-CoV-2 infections regardless of symptom status; vaccine effectiveness of partial immunization (≥14 days after first dose but before second dose) was 80%"

Now you have to prove that is any different than any asymptomatic carrier of the virus that has not been vaccinated. Good luck with that.

I'll even help you:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

@metal-brain said
Hey moron. The CDC has a conflict of interest because many of them own vaccine patent rights. Who funded the study?

"Under real-world conditions, mRNA vaccine effectiveness of full immunization (≥14 days after second dose) was 90% against SARS-CoV-2 infections regardless of symptom status; vaccine effectiveness of partial immunization (≥14 days after first dose but bef ...[text shortened]... d. Good luck with that.

I'll even help you:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

OOOOH, a "conspiracy theory". The CDC merely reported those studies; it did not conduct them.

These studies and others refute your lies. Contrary to your non-scientific claims, there is plenty of evidence that the present vaccines prevent infection altogether.

I'm not sure why you are referencing a study that proves strict lockdowns work. What that has to do with the effectiveness of vaccines is a bit of a puzzle.

@no1marauder said
OOOOH, a "conspiracy theory". The CDC merely reported those studies; it did not conduct them.

These studies and others refute your lies. Contrary to your non-scientific claims, there is plenty of evidence that the present vaccines prevent infection altogether.

I'm not sure why you are referencing a study that proves strict lockdowns work. What that has to do with the effectiveness of vaccines is a bit of a puzzle.

Your own CDC link said "A new CDC study". That implies the CDC conducted it. You are lying again.

The study I posted is about positive asymptomatic cases. You have not answered my question. What is the difference between vaccinated positive asymptomatic cases and non vaccinated positive asymptomatic cases? If there is little difference your CDC study is worthless and meant to mislead.

CDC members hold patent rights in a clear conflict of interest. That is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact.

https://www.lawfirms.com/resources/environment/environment-health/cdc-members-own-more-50-patents-connected-vaccinations

There are other conflicts of interest as well:

https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2000/08/23/119685/congress-hits-fda-cdc-on-vaccine-conflicts-of-interest/

Stop calling facts conspiracy theories. Even a moron can see a conflict of interest like these is complete BS corruption that is inexcusable. Stop condoning corruption!