Covid 19 mrna Vaccines...Yes/No?

[mexcurandero420]

Women recently injected with experimental covid vaccines are showing symptoms of BREAST CANCER
A group of Utah doctors have discovered something terrifying in recent mammogram screenings taken at the Breast Care Centre in Salt Lake City, Utah. Women who were recently injected with experimental COVID vaccines suffer from abnormal inflammation of the lymph nodes in their breasts. According to the Intermountain Healthcare doctors, women who take the covid-19 vaccines are showing symptoms of breast cancer. Dr. Brett Parkinson, MD., warns, “Whenever we see these on a normal screening mammogram, we call those patients back because it can either mean metastatic breast cancer which travels to the lymph nodes or lymphoma or leukemia.” Instead of dealing with the cause of this problem (vaccines), the doctors are now telling women not to get mammograms after vaccination. Out of sight, out of mind.Experimental vaccines causing systemic inflammation in breast tissue

The vaccines are not only causing an inflammatory response in the arm of recipients, as seen with most vaccines, but the shots are also causing systemic inflammation throughout women’s breast tissue. The doctors are concerned because the inflammation goes up with each vaccine dose. After the first dose of the Moderna vaccine, women, on average, have 11 percent swollen lymph nodes in their breast tissue. After the second dose, the inflammation increases to 16% of their lymph nodes in breast tissue. The Moderna vaccine is built on the experimental mRNA platform that metaphorically terraforms human cells so they can support foreign virus replication. The mRNA platform alters cellular processes, causing unpredictable inflammation as the immune cells respond to these newly developed virus properties.

Concealing vaccine injury and cancer causes becomes top priority for oncologists

In order to conceal the evidence of this widespread vaccine injury, the doctors are changing mammogram guidelines and refusing to screen the breast tissue of women who were recently vaccinated for covid-19. The doctors now advise all women patients to reschedule their yearly mammograms, either before the first dose or four weeks after the second dose. “We don’t want these patients to get a false positive to have this sort of alarm,” Parkinson said. Oncologists typically respond to all positives (false or real) in an aggressive manner, recommending surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. However, when it comes to finding vaccine-induced inflammation in the lymph nodes of breast tissue, the doctors are suddenly ready to call the evidence a "false positive." The cancer industry isn't about to unveil the causes of cancer and talk about real solutions. The doctors pride themselves in "saving lives" through early detection of breast cancer, but when it comes to vaccine injury, the doctors turn a blind eye and delay the screening process. Obviously, women and the rest of society are being deceived about the origins of cancer and chronic disease. Women are being misled about the underlying causes of inflammation that create the conditions for breast cancer to develop. Vaccination initiates an inflammatory process. The experimental mRNA vaccines are designed to reprogram cellular functions, to create spike proteins that will create even more inflammation throughout the body. The fact that the doctors are willing to forgo breast cancer detection after a woman is vaccinated, shows just how far the medical establishment will go to cover up vaccine injury and the true origins of cancer. For more on dealing with a cancer diagnosis.

 

[EsterEssence]

I wasn’t going to get a vaccine but thought about all mankind and I rolled up my sleeve, it made me sleep for a couple days, some are aching, and loss of energy for a couple days. I’m 67 with high blood pressure so a slightly high risk to the disease. In got the moderna one. i’m not sure if I see the light at the end of the tunnel, or the train coming at me...

 

[trichrider]

They’re Lying to you! COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines!

ByJohn Adams
Mar 5, 2021

Did you know that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines aren’t vaccines in the medical and legal definition of a vaccine? They do not prevent you from getting the infection, nor do they prevent its spread. They’re really experimental gene therapies.
In a recent interview with molecular biologist Judy Mikovits, Ph.D. While the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA shots are labeled as “vaccines,” and news agencies and health policy leaders call them that, the actual patents for Pfizer’s and Moderna’s injections more truthfully describe them as “gene therapy,” not vaccines.

Definition of ‘Vaccine’
Neither Moderna nor Pfizer claims this to be the case for their COVID-19 “vaccines.” In fact, in their clinical trials, they specify that they will not even test for immunity.
Unlike real vaccines, which use an antigen of the disease you’re trying to prevent, the COVID-19 injections contain synthetic RNA fragments encapsulated in a nano lipid carrier compound, the sole purpose of which is to lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein, not the actual virus.
They do not actually impart immunity or inhibit the transmissibility of the disease. In other words, they are not designed to keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they only are supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected.
As such, these products do not meet the legal or medical definition of a vaccine, and as noted by David Martin, Ph.D., in the video above, “The legal ramifications of this deception are immense.”
15 U.S. Code Section 41

As explained by Martin, 15 U.S. Code Section 41 of the Federal Trade Commission Act[SUP]2[/SUP] is the law that governs advertising of medical practices. This law, which dictates what you may and may not do in terms of promotion, has for many years been routinely used to shut down alternative health practitioners and companies.

“If this law can be used to shut down people of good will, who are trying to help others,” Martin says, “it certainly should be equally applied when we know deceptive medical practices are being done in the name of public health.”​

Per this law, it is unlawful to advertise:

“… that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.”[SUP]3[/SUP]​

What Constitutes ‘The Greater Good’?
Martin points to the 1905 Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts,[SUP]4[/SUP] which essentially established that collective benefit supersedes individual benefit. To put it bluntly, it argued that it’s acceptable for individuals to be harmed by public health directives provided it benefits the collective.
Now, if vaccination is a public health measure that is supposed to protect and benefit the collective, then it would need to a) ensure that the individual who is vaccinated is rendered immune from the disease in question; and b) that the vaccine inhibits transmission of the disease.
Only if these two outcomes can be scientifically proven can you say that vaccination protects and benefits the collective — the population as a whole. This is where we run into problems with the mRNA “vaccines.”
Moderna’s SEC filings, which Martin claims to have carefully reviewed, specifies and stresses that its technology is a “gene therapy technology.” Originally, its technology was set up to be a cancer treatment, so more specifically, it’s a chemotherapy gene therapy technology.
As noted by Martin, who would raise their hand to receive prophylactic chemotherapy gene therapy for cancer you do not have and may never be at risk for? In all likelihood, few would jump at such an offer, and for good reason.

Moreover, states and employers would not be able to mandate individuals to receive chemotherapy gene therapy for cancer they do not have. It simply would not be legal. Yet, they’re proposing that all of humanity be forced to get gene therapy for COVID-19.
COVID-19 Vaccines — A Case of False Advertising
Now, if the COVID-19 vaccine really isn’t a vaccine, why are they calling it that? While the CDC provides a definition of “vaccine,” the CDC is not the actual law. It’s an agency empowered by the law, but it does not create law itself. Interestingly enough, it’s more difficult to find a legal definition of “vaccine,” but there have been a few cases. Martin provides the following examples:
•Iowa code — “Vaccine means a specially prepared antigen administered to a person for the purpose of providing immunity.” Again, the COVID-19 vaccines make no claim of providing immunity. They are only designed to lessen symptoms if and when you get infected.
•Washington state code — “Vaccine means a preparation of a killed or attenuated living microorganism, or fraction thereof …” Since Moderna and Pfizer are using synthetic RNA, they clearly do not meet this definition.
Being a manmade synthetic, the RNA used is not derived from anything that has at one point been alive, be it a whole microorganism or a fraction thereof. The statute continues to specify that a vaccine “upon immunization stimulates immunity that protects us against disease …”

So, in summary, “vaccine” and “immunity” are well-defined terms that do not match the endpoints specified in COVID-19 vaccine trials. The primary endpoint in these trials is: “Prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 disease.” Is that the same as “immunity”? No, it is not.
There Are More Problems Than One
But there’s another problem. Martin points out that “COVID-19 disease” has been defined as a series of clinical symptoms. Moreover, there’s no causal link between SARS-CoV-2, the virus, and the set of symptoms known as COVID-19.
How is that, you might ask? It’s simple, really. Since a vast majority of people who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 have no symptoms at all, they’ve not been able to establish a causal link between the virus and the clinical disease.
Here’s yet another problem: The primary endpoint in the COVID-19 vaccine trials is not an actual vaccine trial endpoint because, again, vaccine trial endpoints have to do with immunity and transmission reduction. Neither of those was measured.
What’s more, key secondary endpoints in Moderna’s trial include “Prevention of severe COVID-19 disease and prevention of infection by SARS-CoV-2.” However, by its own admission, Moderna did not actually measure infection, stating that it was too “impractical” to do so.
That means there’s no evidence of this gene therapy having an impact on infection, for better or worse. And, if you have no evidence, you cannot fulfill the U.S. Code requirement that states you must have “competent and reliable scientific evidence … substantiating that the claims are true.”
Why Are They Calling Them Vaccines?
As noted by Martin, you cannot have a vaccine that does not meet a single definition of a vaccine. So, again, what would motivate these companies, U.S. health agencies, and public health officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci to lie and claim that these gene therapies are in fact vaccines when, clearly, they are not?
If they actually called it what it is, namely “gene therapy chemotherapy,” most people would — wisely — refuse to take it. Perhaps that’s one reason for their false categorization as vaccines. But there may be other reasons as well.
Here, Martin strays into conjecture, as we have no proof of their intentions. He speculates that the reason they’re calling this experimental gene therapy technology a “vaccine” is because by doing so, they can circumvent liability for damages.
You’re being lied to. Your own government is violating its own laws. They have shut down practitioners around the country, time and time again, for violating what are called ‘deceptive practices in medical claims.’ Guess what? They’re doing exactly that thing. ~ David Martin, Ph.D.As long as the U.S. is under a state of emergency, things like PCR tests and COVID-19 “vaccines” are allowed under emergency use authorization. And as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect, the makers of these experimental gene therapies are not financially liable for any harm that comes from their use.
That is, provided they’re “vaccines.” If these injections are NOT vaccines, then the liability shield falls away, because there is no liability shield for a medical emergency countermeasure that is gene therapy.
So, by maintaining the illusion that COVID-19 is a state of emergency when in reality it is not, government leaders are providing cover for these gene therapy companies so that they can get immunity from liability.
Under the Cover of ‘Emergency’
As noted by Martin, if state governors were to lift the state of emergency, all of a sudden the use of RT PCR testing would be in violation of 15 U.S. Code FTC Act, as PCR tests are not an approved diagnostic test.

“You cannot diagnose a thing [with something] that cannot diagnose a thing,” Martin says. “That a misrepresentation. That is a deceptive practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act. And they’re liable for deceptive practices.”​

Importantly, there’s no waiver of liability under deceptive practices — even under a state of emergency. This would also apply to experimental gene therapies. The only way for these gene therapies to enjoy liability shielding is if they are vaccines developed in response to a public health emergency. There is no such thing as immunity from liability for gene therapies.
Propaganda and Vaccine Rollout Run by Same Company
Martin brings up yet another curious point. The middleman in Operation Warp Speed is a North Carolina defense contractor called ATI. It controls the rollout of the vaccine. But ATI also has another type of contract with the Department of Defense, namely managing propaganda and combating misinformation.
So, the same company in charge of manipulating the media to propagate government propaganda and censor counterviews is the same company in charge of the rollout of “vaccines” that are being unlawfully promoted.

“Listen,” Martin says. “This is a pretty straight-forward situation. You’re being lied to. Your own government is violating its own laws … They have thrown this book [15 U.S. Code Section 41] on more people than we can count.​

They have shut down practitioners around the country, time and time again, for violating what are called ‘deceptive practices in medical claims’ … Guess what? They’re doing exactly that thing.”​

Martin urges listeners to forward his video to your state attorney, governor, representatives and anyone else that might be in a position to take affirmative action to address and correct this fraud.
Defense contractors are violating FTC law, and gene therapy companies — not vaccine manufacturers — are conducting experimental trials under deceptive medical practices. They’re making claims of being “vaccines” without clinical proof, and must be held accountable for their deceptive marketing and medical practices.
CDC Owns Coronavirus Patents
On a side note, the CDC appears to be neck-deep in this scam pandemic, and is therefore wholly unsuitable to investigate the side effects of these experimental COVID-19 therapies. As noted by Martin, it’s like having a bank robber investigate its own crime.
Martin is a national intelligence analyst and founder of IQ100 Index, which developed linguistic genomics, a platform capable of determining the intent of communications. In 1999, IBM digitized 1 million U.S. patents, which allowed Martin’s company to conduct a review of all these patents, sending him down a proverbial “rabbit trail” of corruption.
In 2003, Asia experienced an outbreak of SARS. Almost immediately, scientists began racing to patent the virus. Ultimately, the CDC nabbed ownership of SARS-CoV (the virus responsible for SARS) isolated from humans.
So, the CDC actually owns the entire genetic content of that SARS virus. It’s patented under U.S. patent 7776521. They also own patents for detection methods, and for a kit to measure the virus.
U.S. patent 7279327,[SUP]5[/SUP] filed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, describes methods for producing recombinant coronaviruses. Ralph Baric, Ph.D., a professor of microbiology and immunology who is famous for his chimeric coronavirus research, is listed as one of the three inventors, along with Kristopher Curtis and Boyd Yount.
According to Martin, Fauci, Baric and the CDC “are at the hub” of the whole COVID-19 story. “In 2002, coronaviruses were recognized as an exploitable mechanism for both good and ill,” Martin says, and “Between 2003 and 2017, they [Fauci, Baric and CDC] controlled 100% of the cash flow to build the empire around the industrial complex of coronavirus.”
How the CDC Broke the Law
The key take-home message Martin delivers in “Plandemic” is that there’s a distinct problem with the CDC’s patent on SARS-CoV isolated from humans, because, by law, naturally occurring DNA segments are prohibited from being patented.
The law clearly states that such segments are “not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” So, either SARS-CoV was manmade, which would render the patent legal, or it’s natural, thus rendering the patent on it illegal.
However, if the virus was manufactured, then it was created in violation of biological weapons treaties and laws. This includes the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, passed unanimously by both houses of Congress and signed into law by George Bush Sr., which states:[SUP]6[/SUP]

“Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the United States.”​

So, as noted by Martin in the documentary, regardless of which scenario turns out to be true, the CDC has broken the law one way or another, either by violating biological weapons laws or by filing an illegal patent. Even more egregious, on May 14, 2007, the CDC filed a petition with the patent office to keep their coronavirus patent confidential.
Now, because the CDC owns the patent on SARS-CoV, it has control over who has the ability to make inquiries into the coronavirus. Unless authorized, you cannot look at the virus, you cannot measure it or make tests for it, since they own the entire genome and all the rest.

“By obtaining the patents that restrained anyone from using it, they had the means, the motive, and most of all, they had the monetary gain from turning coronavirus from a pathogen to a profit,” Martin says.​

Dangers of mRNA Gene Therapy
Dr. Simone Gold — founder of America’s Frontline Doctors, which has been trying to counter the false narrative surrounding hydroxychloroquine — reviews the dangers discovered during previous coronavirus vaccine trials, and the hazards of current mRNA gene therapies, including antibody-dependent immune enhancement.
Antibody-dependent immune enhancement results in more severe disease when you’re exposed to the wild virus and increases your risk of death. The synthetic RNA and the nano lipid it is encased in may also have other, more direct side effects. As explained by Mikovits in our recent interview:

“Normally, messenger RNA is not free in your body because it’s a danger signal. The central dogma of molecular biology is that our genetic code, DNA, is transcribed, written, into the messenger RNA. That messenger RNA is translated into protein, or used in a regulatory capacity … to regulate gene expression in cells.​

So, taking a synthetic messenger RNA and making it thermostable — making it not break down — [is problematic]. We have lots of enzymes (RNAses and DNAses) that degrade free RNA and DNA because, again, those are danger signals to your immune system. They literally drive inflammatory diseases.​

Now you’ve got PEG, PEGylated and polyethylene glycol, and a lipid nanoparticle that will allow it to enter every cell of the body and change the regulation of our own genes with this synthetic RNA, part of which actually is the message for the gene syncytin …​

Syncytin is the endogenous gammaretrovirus envelope that’s encoded in the human genome … We know that if syncytin … is expressed aberrantly in the body, for instance in the brain, which these lipid nanoparticles will go into, then you’ve got multiple sclerosis. ​

The expression of that gene alone enrages microglia — literally inflames and dysregulates the communication between the brain microglia — which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens in the brain and the communication with astrocytes.​

It dysregulates not only the immune system, but also the endocannabinoid system, which is the dimmer switch on inflammation. We’ve already seen multiple sclerosis as an adverse event in the clinical trials … We also see myalgic encephalomyelitis. Inflammation of the brain and the spinal cord …”​

Making matters worse, the synthetic mRNA also has an HIV envelope expressed in it, which can cause immune dysregulation. As we discussed in previous interviews, SARS-CoV-2 has been engineered in the lab with gain-of-function research that included introducing the HIV envelope into the spike protein.
Are You in a High-Risk Group for Side Effects?
Mikovits’ hypothesis is that those who are most susceptible to severe neurological side effects and death from the COVID-19 vaccines are those who have previously been injected with XMRVs, borrelia, babesia, or mycoplasma through contaminated vaccines, resulting in chronic disease, as well as anyone with an inflammatory disease like rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson’s disease or chronic Lyme disease, for example, and anyone with an acquired immune deficiency from any pathogens and environmental toxins.
The chart below lists 35 diseases that are likely to render you more susceptible to severe side effects or death from COVID-19 gene therapy injections.
Many of the symptoms now being reported are suggestive of neurological damage. They have severe dyskinesia (impairment of voluntary movement), ataxia (lack of muscle control), and intermittent or chronic seizures. Many cases detailed in personal videos on social media are quite shocking. According to Mikovits, these side effects are due to neuroinflammation, a dysregulated innate immune response, and/or a disrupted endocannabinoid system.
Another common side effect from the vaccine we’re seeing is allergic reactions, including anaphylactic shock. A likely culprit in this is PEG (polyethylene glycol), which an estimated 70% of Americans are allergic to.
Experimental Gene Therapy Is a Bad Idea
Circling back to where we began, COVID-19 vaccines are not vaccines. They are experimental gene therapies that are falsely marketed as vaccines, likely to circumvent liability. World governments and global and national health organizations are all complicit in this illegal deception and must be held accountable.
Ask yourself the question Martin asked in his video: Would you agree to take an experimental chemotherapy gene therapy for cancer you do not have? If the answer is no, then why would you even consider lining up for an experimental gene therapy for COVID-19 — a set of clinical symptoms that haven’t even been causally linked to SARS-CoV-2?
These injections are not vaccines. They do not prevent infection, they do not render you immune, and they do not prevent transmission of the disease. Instead, they alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch. What’s happening here is a medical fraud of unprecedented magnitude, and it really needs to be stopped before it’s too late for a majority of people.

https://1791times.com/Main/2021/03/...covid-19-mrna-shots-are-legally-not-vaccines/

one really needs to inform oneself and others.

 

[Absolem]

People educating themselves by quack/Judy Mikovits isn't much of an education.

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/AID.2020.0095

One cannot spend >5 min on social media at the moment without finding a link to some conspiracy theory or other regarding the origin of SARS-CoV2, the coronavirus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. From the virus being deliberately released as a bioweapon to pharmaceutical companies blocking the trials of natural remedies to boost their dangerous drugs and vaccines, the Internet is rife with far-fetched rumors. And predictably, now that the first immunization trials have started, the antivaccine lobby has latched on to most of them. In the last week, the trailer for a new “bombshell documentary” Plandemic has been doing the rounds, gaining notoriety for being repeatedly removed from YouTube and Facebook. We usually would not pay much heed to such things, but for retrovirologists like us, the name associated with these claims is unfortunately too familiar: Dr. Judy Mikovits.

May is the month when we and colleagues in our close-knit family of retrovirus researchers usually descend on the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories on Long Island for a week of camaraderie and intense scientific discussion. It was at this meeting and others that the full scope of Judy Mikovits fraud and malfeasance became clear to the research community, so clear that we came to expect, if not hope that we would never have to hear her name again. Yet here she was popping up all over the right-wing news, reeling off a story of how COVID-19 was the result of animal experimentation in the development of vaccines, and how vaccines themselves were contaminated with mouse retroviruses that were causing untold ills. Naturally this information, and her research in particular, was being suppressed by Big Pharma and the “corrupt mainstream scientists” on their payroll. And the villain of the piece is none other than Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease and long-suffering clinical advisor to Trump's COVID-19 Taskforce. The trouble with this conspiracy theory is that not only is it demonstrably untrue, much of it derives from a scientific fraud that Mikovits and coworkers perpetrated in 2009.

Mikovits was swiftly fired from the WPI who accused her of insubordination and misappropriating documents.[SUP]28[/SUP] After fleeing to California to avoid arrest, Mikovits returned documents to the WPI that a member of her laboratory had taken for her, and the charges were dropped. She was allowed to continue collaborating with Ian Lipkin and Frank Ruscetti, and they eventually published their “replication” study of the original WPI article showing that there was no evidence of human infection by XMRV in ME/CFS.[SUP]29[/SUP] And after that, we, as a field, heard little of her. In a final postscript to the whole sorry XMRV saga, the authors of the original study who identified XMRV in prostate cancer retracted their article[SUP]30[/SUP] on the basis that tumor samples reanalyzed found no evidence of XMRV and concluded that the presence of 22RV1 cells in the laboratory had contaminated the samples.[SUP]31[/SUP]

 

[trichrider]

more ad hominem.
disprove the information by smearing the presenter...
not!
you're fake news.
about as lame a rebuttal as i have ever read.
and Fraudci is at the heart of it.

The Overwhelming Evidence of the Origin of the COVID-19 Pandemic Was Covered Up by US Government Officials, US Scientific Authorities and Their Chinese Counterparts


By Joe Hoft
Published March 4, 2021

Guest post by Lawrence Sellin, PhD
Already by the end of January 2020, elements within the U.S. government and the U.S. scientific establishment were becoming increasingly concerned that the American people might learn the truth about the origin of the COVID-19.

That is, it was an artificial virus created in a laboratory in the People’s Republic of China with the assistance of U.S. scientists and funding from the U.S. government.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-scientific-authorities-chinese-counterparts/

this is undisputed.

 

[Absolem]

Joe Hoft from Infowars...... LMAO. Need I say more?

The Gateway pundit? More scum for the brain.

This is the Anons education system.

 

[trichrider]

blocked for extreme ignorance...and bigotry.

 

[Absolem]

Blocked by people who cry "cancel culture". Too funny.

 

[mexcurandero420]

In his characteristic clear and dryly comical way, professor (em.) Of experimental immunology Pierre Capel has once again questioned the Covid vaccinations and government policy in a new video. He compares the effect of the mRNA vaccines in our body to an explosive attack, after which the 'experts' attribute the - sometimes fatal - havoc to 'overdue maintenance'.
'At the moment I think the desert is a very nice image in which I reside,' Capel begins. 'I can scream very loudly there, but hardly anyone hears me.'
Messenger RNA (mRNA) is a kind of copy of a genetic code. If you bring this to the protein factory in the cell, proteins are made from it. ' He then shows a drawing of the interior of a human cell. The nucleus contains all genetic information in the form of DNA. 'Suppose the pancreas wants to produce insulin. Then a copy of the insulin gene in the form of mRNA is made in the cell nucleus. That ends up in the cell's' protein factory ', and then the product is produced.'
He compares this frequently occurring normal process to a cash withdrawal at an ATM. The DNA in the nucleus is the bank, the mRNA is your card. If the correct 'PIN code' is entered, the money will appear, in the above case insulin.
The body sees mRNA that goes the other way around as a great danger
But what if we let mRNA take the opposite path, namely from the outside to the inside, into the cell nucleus? Instead of making mRNA in the cell nucleus, we now inject it into humans. This is not a normal physical process, so your immune system usually sees such an external substance as very dangerous. When this material arrives, panic arises. All kinds of defense mechanisms, such as inflamosomes, the complement system and NFkappaB, come into action.
If we compare this with the quiet, natural 'cash withdrawal', in which the mRNA comes from within and is seen as native to the body, then the foreign mRNA is seen from the outside as a very aggressive 'cash withdrawal': an explosive crack. "These two methods are quite different."

Is there havoc after an explosion due to overdue maintenance?
The big point is that 'if we want to activate the immune system, there has to be some kind of danger signal, otherwise nothing will happen. That danger signal is that you are going to achieve something in the cell outside the normal circuit, from the outside to the inside. That in itself is very useful for activating the immune system and in that way starting a whole reaction, so that you learn to deal with that danger. '
'But is it sometimes a bit too intense, isn't it? And that is very important to find out. So if we now see that such a reaction has occurred (see image below) , and it is due to this somewhat aggressive way of withdrawing money, then you should try to curb that which could be a little easier. But according to the experts, this situation is due to overdue maintenance. '

 

[White Beard]

its not about never getting it again its about your body knowing how to deal with it without dieing, or getting really sick imo. even the vaccine won't stop you getting it, only helps you not to get a sever case of it.

You really ought to brush up on how the human immune system works, bro...

 

[trichrider]

Peter Danszak of EcoHealthAlliance spills some beans at 28:25...
"SarsCov2 is untreatable with therapeutics monoclonals, and you can't vaccinate against them with vaccines."
.........
NIH awards $7.5 million grant to EcoHealth Alliance, months after uproar over political interference
......
Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research

Issue No. 689
April 2020
ISPSW Strategy Series: Focus on Defense and International Security Why US outsourced bat virus research to Wuhan Dr Christina Lin © Institut für Strategie- Politik- Sicherheits- und Wirtschaftsberatung ISPSW Giesebrechtstr. 9 Tel +49 (0)30 88 91 89 05 E-Mail: info@ispsw.de 10629 Berlin Fax +49 (0)30 88 91 89 06 Website: http://www.ispsw.de Germany Analysis
After a temporary détente between the US and China to put aside the blame game and cooperate to fight Covid-19, it seems conspiracy theories are once again flaring up and sabotaging joint efforts to control the pandemic. The US National Institute of Health (NIH) funded bat coronavirus research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology to the tune of $3.7 million, a recent article in the British newspaper Daily Mail revealed.1Back in October 2014, the US government had placed a federal moratorium on gain-of-function (GOF) research—altering natural pathogens to make them more deadly and infectious–as a result of rising fears about a possible pandemic caused by accidental or deliberate release of these genetically engineered monster germs.2This was in part due to lab accidents at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in July 2014 that raised questions about biosafety at US high-containment labs.3At that time, the CDC had closed two labs and halted some biological shipments in the wake of several incidents in which highly pathogenic microbes were mishandled by federal laboratories: an accidental shipment of live anthrax, the discovery of forgotten, live smallpox samples, and a newly revealed incident in which a dangerous influenza strain was accidentally shipped from CDC to another lab. A CDC internal report described how scientists failed to follow proper procedures to ensure samples were inactivated before they left the lab, and also found “multiple other problems” with operating procedures in the anthrax lab.4As such in October 2014, due to public health concerns the US government banned all federal funding on efforts to weaponize three viruses—influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).5In the face of a moratorium in the US, Dr. Anthony Fauci–director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infec-tious Disease (NIAID) and currently the leading doctor in the US Coronavirus Task Force–outsourced in 2015 the GOF research to China’s Wuhan lab and licensed the lab to continue receiving federal funding.6The Wuhan lab is now at the center of scrutiny for possibly releasing the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and causing the global Covid-19 pandemic.

https://www.ispsw.com/wp-content/upl...04/689_Lin.pdf


Bat Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Like Coronavirus WIV1 Encodes an Extra Accessory Protein, ORFX, Involved in Modulation of the Host Immune Response

Lei-Ping Zeng, Yu-Tao Gao, Xing-Yi Ge, Qian Zhang, Cheng Peng, Xing-Lou Yang, Bing Tan, Jing Chen, Aleksei A. Chmura, Peter Daszak, Zheng-Li Shi

S. Perlman, Editor

DOI: 10.1128/JVI.03079-1

• Article
• Figures & Data
• Info & Metrics
• PDF

Article Information
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.03079-15
Published By
American Society for Microbiology Journals
History

• Received December 9, 2015
• Accepted May 1, 2016
• Published online June 24, 2016.

Copyright & Usage
Copyright © 2016, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved

• Author Information

Peter Daszak[SUP]b[/SUP] and
Zheng-Li Shi[SUP]a[/SUP]
EcoHealth Alliance, New York, New York, USA

https://jvi.asm.org/content/90/14/6573/article-info

COVID-19 Anti-Trust Argument


Some of this information was submitted to the Office of the Inspector General for the United States Department of Health and Human Services on April 22, 2020

Request for Investigation - Possible Sherman Act Violation

Citizens of the United States of America

vs.

United States Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Robert R Redfield, et al.

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Anthony Stephen Fauci, et al.

Governors of All States Issuing Executive Orders abridging the 1st Amendment of the Constitution

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Professor Ralph Baric, et al.

And unknown Parties

On April 25, 2003, the United States Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (hereinafter, “CDC”) filed an application for a United States (Application Number US46592703P, subsequently issued as U.S. Patent 7,776,521) entitled “Coronavirus isolated from humans”. Claim 3 –A method of detecting a severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in a sample…; and, Claim 4 - A kit for detecting a severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in a sample…, provided the CDC with a statutory market exclusion right the detection of and sampling for severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV). Securing this right afforded the CDC exclusive right to research, commercially exploit, or block others from conducting activities involving SARS-CoV. On September 24, 2018, the CDC failed to pay the required maintenance fees on this patent and their rights expired.

From April 2003 until September 2018, the CDC owned SARS-CoV, its ability to be detected and the ability to manufacture kits for its assessment. During this 15-year period, the effect of the grant of this right – ruled unconstitutional in 2013 by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. Myriad Genetics – meant that the commercial exploitation of any research or commercial activity in the United States involving SARS-CoV would constitute an infringement of CDC’s illegal patent.

It appears that, during the period of patent enforcement and after the Supreme Court ruling confirming that patents on genetic material was illegal, the CDC and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases led by Anthony Fauci (hereinafter “NIAID” and "Dr Fauci", respectively) entered into trade among States (including, but not limited to working with Ecohealth Alliance Inc.) and with foreign nations (specifically, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Chinese Academy of Sciences) through the 2014 et seq National Institutes of Health Grant R01AI110964 to exploit their patent rights.

It further appears that, during the period of patent enforcement and after the Supreme Court ruling confirming that patents on genetic material were illegal, the CDC and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (hereinafter “NIAID”) entered into trade among States (including, but not limited to working with University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) and with foreign nations (specifically, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Chinese Academy of Sciences represented by Zheng-Li Shi) through U19AI109761 (Ralph S. Baric), U19AI107810 (Ralph S. Baric), and National Natural Science Foundation of China Award 81290341 (Zheng-Li Shi) et al.

It further appears that, during the period of patent enforcement and after the Supreme Court ruling confirming that patents on genetic material was illegal, the CDC and NIAID entered into trade among States (including, but not limited to working with University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) and with foreign nations to conduct chimeric construction of novel coronavirus material with specific virulence properties prior to, during, and following the determination made by the National Institutes for Health in October 17, 2014 that this work was not sufficiently understood for its biosecurity and safety standards.

In this inquiry, it is presumed that the CDC and its associates were: a) fully aware of the work being performed using their patented technology; b) entered into explicit or implicit agreements including licensing, or other consideration; and, c) willfully engaged one or more foreign interests to carry forward the exploitation of their proprietary technology when the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that such patents were illegal and when the National Institutes of Health issued a moratorium on such research.

The aforementioned items appear to constitute, “contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy,” as defined under 15 US Code § 1.

Under 15 U.S. Code § 1 (the Sherman Antitrust Act) “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.”

Reportedly, in January 2018, the U.S. Embassy in China sent investigators to Wuhan Institute of Virology and found that, “During interactions with scientists at the WIV laboratory, they noted the new lab has a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory.” The Washington Post reported that this information was contained in a cable dated 19 January 2018. Over a year later, in June 2019, the CDC conducted an inspection of Fort Detrick’s U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (hereinafter “USAMRIID”) and ordered it closed after alleging that their inspection found biosafety hazards. A report in the journal Nature in 2003 (423(6936): 103) reported cooperation between CDC and USAMRIID on coronavirus research followed by considerable subsequent collaboration. The CDC, for what appear to be the same type of concern identified in Wuhan, elected to continue work with the Chinese government while closing the U.S. Army facility.

Reportedly, on December 31, 2019, the Chinese government informed the World Health Organization (WHO) that a number of cases of suspected coronavirus-associated SARS cases were being treated in the area of Wuhan. The CDC reported the first case of SARS-CoV like illness in the United States in January 2020 with the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service reporting 650 clinical cases and 210 tests. Given that the suspected pathogen was first implicated in official reports on December 31, 2019, one can only conclude that CDC: a) had the mechanism and wherewithal to conduct tests to confirm the existence of a “novel coronavirus”; or, b) did not have said mechanism and falsely reported the information in January. It tests credulity to suggest that the WHO or the CDC could manufacture and distribute tests for a “novel” pathogen when their own subsequent record on development and deployment of tests has been shown to be without reliability.

Notwithstanding, the CDC and WHO elected to commit to a narrative of a novel coronavirus – exhibiting properties that were anticipated in the U.S. Patent 7,618,802 issued to the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill’s Ralph Baric – and, in the absence of testing protocols, elected to insist that SARS-CoV-2 was the pathogen responsible for conditions that were consistent with moderate to severe acute respiratory syndrome.

On March 4, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsome appears to have violated the law of the State of California by issuing Executive Order N-33-20 based on the “threat of COVID-19” with no evidence that such threat existed as confirmed by serology or confirmed immunologic evidence. The Government Code sections cited in the Order (Government Code sections 8567, 8627, and 8665) require that criteria be met which do not include the “threat” of any condition but evidence of said condition. At that time, neither the CDC nor the WHO had sufficient testing in place to: a) confirm and isolate “a novel coronavirus” from other coronaviruses; b) California did not have pathology data to suggest that an epidemic was imminent; and, c) the rest of the United States was equally incapable of making any such assessment as a result of the aforementioned conspiring parties actions. Governor Newsome’s Executive Order, followed by numerous other similar orders, all are based on the threat of a thing that may or may not exist.

Around March 12, 2020, in an effort to enrich their own economic interests by way of securing additional funding from both Federal and Foundation actors, the CDC and NIAID’s Dr Fauci elected to suspend testing and classify COVID-19 by capricious symptom presentation alone. Not surprisingly, this was necessitated by the apparent fall in cases that constituted Dr. Fauci’s and others’ criteria for depriving citizens of their 1st Amendment rights. At present, the standard according to the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists Interim-20-ID-01 for COVID-19 classification is:

In outpatient or telehealth settings at least two of the following symptoms: fever (measured or subjective), chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s)

OR

at least one of the following symptoms: cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing OR Severe respiratory illness with at least one of the following:

• Clinical or radiographic evidence of pneumonia, or

• Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

AND No alternative more likely diagnosis

Laboratory Criteria for Reporting

● Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a clinical specimen using a molecular amplification detection test.

● Detection of specific antigen in a clinical specimen.

● Detection of specific antibody in serum, plasma, or whole blood indicative of a new or recent infection.* *serologic methods for diagnosis are currently being defined

After inflicting grave harm to the citizens of the United States of America in economic hardships resulting from their allegation of an “epidemic” or “pandemic”, the CDC and the NIAID set forth, and the President of the United States and various Governors in the respective States promulgated, standards for lifting conditions in violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution that serve exclusively to enrich them. Both the presence of a vaccine or treatment and, or, the development of testing – both that solely benefit the possible conspiring parties and their co-conspirators – are set as a condition for re-opening the country. This appears to be an unambiguous violation of the Sherman Act and, if so, should be prosecuted immediately to the full extent of the law.

Additional information is available upon request.

Submitted this 22nd of April, 2020

Dr. David E. Martin – all Whistleblower Rights and Protections Reserved

...........
SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronavirus pose threat for human emergence

Vineet D. Menachery1, Boyd L. Yount Jr1, Kari Debbink1,2, Sudhakar Agnihothram3, Lisa E. Gralinski1, Jessica A. Plante1, Rachel L. Graham1, Trevor Scobey1, Xing-Yi Ge8, Eric F. Donaldson1, Scott H. Randell4,5, Antonio Lanzavecchia6, Wayne A. Marasco7, Zhengli-Li Shi8, and Ralph S. Baric1,21Departments of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA 2Microbiology and Immunology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA 3National Center for Toxicological Research, Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, USA 4Department of Cell Biology and Physiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA 5Marsico Lung Institute/Cystic Fibrosis Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA 6Institute for Research in Biomedicine, Bellinzona, Switzerland Institute of Microbiology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland 7Department of Cancer Immunology and AIDS, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston Massachusetts, USA 8Key Laboratory of Special Pathogens and Biosafety, Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, China
Abstract
The emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS)-CoV underscores the threat of cross-species transmission events leading to outbreaks in humans. In this study, we examine the disease potential for SARS-like CoVs currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations. Utilizing the SARS-CoV infectious clone, we generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse adapted SARS-CoV backbone. The results indicate that group 2b viruses encoding the SHC014 spike in a wild type backbone can efficiently utilize multiple ACE2 receptor orthologs, replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells, and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV. Additionally, in vivo experiments demonstrate replication of the chimeric virus in mouse lung with notable pathogenesis. Evaluation of available SARS-based immune-therapeutic and prophylactic modalities revealed poor efficacy; both monoclonal antibody and vaccine approaches failed to neutralize and protect from CoVs utilizing the novel spike protein. Importantly, based on these findings, we synthetically rederived an infectious full length SHC014 recombinant virus and demonstrate robust viral replication both in vitro and in vivo. Together, the work highlights a continued risk of SARS-CoV reemergence from viruses currently circulating in bat populations.

Corresponding Authors: Ralph S. Baric (rbaric@email.unc.edu); Vineet D. Menachery (vineet@email.unc.edu). Author ContributionsVDM designed, coordinated, performed experiment, completed analysis, and wrote the manuscript. BLY designed infectious clone and recovered chimeric viruses. SA completed neutralization assays. LEG helped perform mouse experiments, TS and JAP completed mouse experiments and plaque assays. XG performed pseudotyping experiments. KD generated structural figures and predictions. ED generated phylogenetic analysis. RLG completed RNA analysis. SHR provided primary human airway epithelial cultures. AL and WM provided critical monoclonal antibody reagents. ZLS provided SHC014 spike sequences and plasmids. RSB designed experiments and wrote manuscript.The authors declare no competing financial interest.HHS Public Access Author manuscript Nat Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 June 01.Published in final edited form as:Nat Med. 2015 December ; 21(12): 1508–1513. doi:10.1038/nm.3985.

https://www.med.unc.edu/orfeome/file...-emergence.pdf


created in a lab with US taxpayer money through grants by NIH/NIAID(Fauci), outsourced to WIV(Wuhan Institute of Virology ) for more 'gain of function research' to make it more infectious. it was either released or escaped the facility.
now who benefits from those patents and 'vaccines'?

 

[EsterEssence]

Wow this is a touchy subject only goes to show the division that is so prevent, some times there is to much information on the web, I am a total antivaxer, I did not have my kids vaccinated, I have never had a fiu shot. Although I had measles, and the related shot also polio, and I remember a sugar cube for polio in the 50’s, Haven’t had a tetanus shot . I helped put a friend go to medical school who is a Dr. now I asked him if I should do it for the benefit of the beings and he said he had his dad do it and he was waiting for his turn so i did it. That is my story. I hope it helped all sentient beings...

 

[Absolem]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...-virus-hunter/

Dr Peter Daszak has been collecting and analysing coronaviruses for decades. He knows batcaves and wet markets like no other. He tells the Telegraph why another pandemic is all but inevitable unless we invest now and prepare


What do you think is driving the conspiracy theories we’ve seen over the last few months?

"People buy into conspiracy theories because they’re convincing stories told by charismatic people with just enough science and fact to make them seem plausible. The truth also tends to be less interesting. In this case, people in China are exposed to bats, who harbour viruses. It’s a lot more exciting to blame scientists inside a top secret lab that’s blocked off with barbed wire even if what is going on behind those doors is actually pretty boring."


Do you think that our natural propensity to jump on conspiracy theories is being played on by politicians?

"Clearly this is part of the politics now. Take the US. We're seeing conspiracy theories being elevated in a polarised press, to the point where politicians then use that to make policy decisions. Which is pretty frightening."

 

[trichrider]

debunk the material.
this is conspiracy fact.
continue using that ad hominem, shows how afraid you are of the content.
unfortunately the ignore feature of this new platform doesn't work.

"There is one kind of microbe that can produce DNA from RNA — retroviruses such as HIV. And the DNA generated by retroviruses can sometimes integrate into cells, Matthew Miller, an associate professor of infectious diseases and immunology at McMaster University, said in an email."

one of the above posts showed how HIV was integrated to substantially increase infection.

 

[Absolem]

Calling Judy Mikovits a fraud isn't a ad hominin attack. It's well known she's a fraud. So why do you link to her????? Then you use Joe Hoft from Infowars?????? This is going about as good for you as all your election fraud claims that never came true.

https://theconversation.com/not-sure...ur-list-153719

Myth 1: they enter your DNA and change your genome

Our genome is the complete set of instructions for making all the molecules our cells need to function. Our genome is made of DNA, a different type of molecule to the RNA in the mRNA vaccines. It’s generally not possible for RNA to become part of our genome.

The myth of mRNA vaccines modifying genomes may have surfaced as some types of RNA retroviruses, such as HIV, contain genes that make a protein called “reverse transcriptase”.

A retrovirus is a type of virus that inserts a copy of its RNA genome into the DNA of a host cell it invades, therefore altering the genome of that cell. Taking the example of HIV, reverse transcriptase can convert the HIV RNA into DNA, so the HIV genes can enter our genome.

But SARS-CoV-2 is not a retrovirus and the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines don’t make reverse transcriptase. They only contain one gene: the gene for the SARS-CoV-2 viral spike protein.

---

Read more: Explainer: what is RNA?

---

So, the only way the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA might enter your DNA is if you were unlucky enough to be infected at precisely the same time with HIV, or another kind of retrovirus, and this virus was active for the few short hours the vaccine mRNA was present in your cells. The chances of this happening are vanishingly small.

Unlike DNA, mRNA doesn’t last long in our cells. The mRNA lasts just long enough to instruct the cell to make viral spike protein, but will then break down, like all the other thousands of mRNA molecules our cells make all the time.
Myth 2: they connect you to the internet


The Pfizer mRNA vaccine contains a piece of mRNA which is coated in a lipid (fatty) droplet. The lipid helps the vaccine enter our cells, as the membrane holding our cells together is also made mostly of lipid. The vaccine and the membrane can fuse easily, depositing the mRNA inside the cell.

Some other companies, developing different mRNA vaccines, are exploring mixing their vaccines with materials called “hydrogels”. The hydrogels might help disperse the vaccine slowly into our cells.
Many countries have already begun rolling out the Pfizer vaccine. Marton Monus/AP
Bioengineers have used similar hydrogels for many years in different ways. For instance, they’ve used them to help stem cells survive after being put inside our bodies.

The use of hydrogels for these stem cell (and other) implants has created a myth they’re needed for electronic implants, which can be linked to the internet. Conspiracy theorists have jumped from implants to hydrogels to mRNA vaccines based on no evidence.

Since Pfizer’s COVID mRNA vaccines don’t include hydrogels as a component (nor do Moderna’s), this is not a concern. Though this wouldn’t be a valid concern even if these vaccines did use hydrogels.

---

Read more: How mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna work, why they're a breakthrough and why they need to be kept so cold

---

Myth 3: they cause autoimmune disease


Autoimmune diseases, such as arthritis and multiple sclerosis, are chronic (long-term) illnesses where our immune systems attack our own cells.

It’s not entirely clear where this belief has come from, but we don’t have any evidence to suggest mRNA vaccines can cause autoimmune diseases.

The fact mRNA is very short-lived inside our cells indicates this is highly unlikely, because you would usually need a long-lived foreign agent to trigger a chronic autoimmune response.

Interestingly, mRNA vaccines are now being designed and delivered to treat autoimmune diseases, such as multiple sclerosis. However, these are still at the early stage of development.

 

[mexcurandero420]

Calling Judy Mikovits a fraud isn't a ad hominin attack. It's well known she's a fraud. So why do you link to her????? Then you use Joe Hoft from Infowars?????? This is going about as good for you as all your election fraud claims that never came true.

https://theconversation.com/not-sure...ur-list-153719

Myth 1: they enter your DNA and change your genome

Our genome is the complete set of instructions for making all the molecules our cells need to function. Our genome is made of DNA, a different type of molecule to the RNA in the mRNA vaccines. It’s generally not possible for RNA to become part of our genome.

The myth of mRNA vaccines modifying genomes may have surfaced as some types of RNA retroviruses, such as HIV, contain genes that make a protein called “reverse transcriptase”.

A retrovirus is a type of virus that inserts a copy of its RNA genome into the DNA of a host cell it invades, therefore altering the genome of that cell. Taking the example of HIV, reverse transcriptase can convert the HIV RNA into DNA, so the HIV genes can enter our genome.

But SARS-CoV-2 is not a retrovirus and the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines don’t make reverse transcriptase. They only contain one gene: the gene for the SARS-CoV-2 viral spike protein.

---

Read more: Explainer: what is RNA?

---

So, the only way the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA might enter your DNA is if you were unlucky enough to be infected at precisely the same time with HIV, or another kind of retrovirus, and this virus was active for the few short hours the vaccine mRNA was present in your cells. The chances of this happening are vanishingly small.

Unlike DNA, mRNA doesn’t last long in our cells. The mRNA lasts just long enough to instruct the cell to make viral spike protein, but will then break down, like all the other thousands of mRNA molecules our cells make all the time.
Myth 2: they connect you to the internet


The Pfizer mRNA vaccine contains a piece of mRNA which is coated in a lipid (fatty) droplet. The lipid helps the vaccine enter our cells, as the membrane holding our cells together is also made mostly of lipid. The vaccine and the membrane can fuse easily, depositing the mRNA inside the cell.

Some other companies, developing different mRNA vaccines, are exploring mixing their vaccines with materials called “hydrogels”. The hydrogels might help disperse the vaccine slowly into our cells.
Many countries have already begun rolling out the Pfizer vaccine. Marton Monus/AP
Bioengineers have used similar hydrogels for many years in different ways. For instance, they’ve used them to help stem cells survive after being put inside our bodies.

The use of hydrogels for these stem cell (and other) implants has created a myth they’re needed for electronic implants, which can be linked to the internet. Conspiracy theorists have jumped from implants to hydrogels to mRNA vaccines based on no evidence.

Since Pfizer’s COVID mRNA vaccines don’t include hydrogels as a component (nor do Moderna’s), this is not a concern. Though this wouldn’t be a valid concern even if these vaccines did use hydrogels.

---

Read more: How mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna work, why they're a breakthrough and why they need to be kept so cold

---

Myth 3: they cause autoimmune disease


Autoimmune diseases, such as arthritis and multiple sclerosis, are chronic (long-term) illnesses where our immune systems attack our own cells.

It’s not entirely clear where this belief has come from, but we don’t have any evidence to suggest mRNA vaccines can cause autoimmune diseases.

The fact mRNA is very short-lived inside our cells indicates this is highly unlikely, because you would usually need a long-lived foreign agent to trigger a chronic autoimmune response.

Interestingly, mRNA vaccines are now being designed and delivered to treat autoimmune diseases, such as multiple sclerosis. However, these are still at the early stage of development.

And we can trust the info of the Australian government, don't think so and everytime calling it vaccine, while it's actually gene therapy is just false information like the rest they are telling ya
No research is done if it can change your genome, so at this moment nothing can be said.

If it causes an autoimmune disease is dependent how your complement system works and also no research has be done about that.

 

[trichrider]

mRNA may or may not change your DNA, no one is showing proof it doesn't. what it does do, is change the way your cells produce proteins. unnaturally.
who cares how long it spends in your cell, and it does invade the cell, if it can change what naturally occurs?
it supposedly creates the same proteins as the virus...how is that not the same as infection? if it causes an immune response it is foreign.

https://i.cbc.ca/1.5795512.16049522.../mrna-vaccine-to-protect-against-covid-19.jpg

 

[mexcurandero420]

Prof Sucharit Bhakdi


See also video(link is external)

In early June, the German government claimed that the pandemic would not be over until a vaccine became available. Then it became clear that a large-scale vaccination campaign was in the pipeline. 350 million vaccines have already been ordered by the EU in the coming months and years, millions of Germans will wonder if they will get vaccinated, and thousands of doctors will wonder if they want to vaccinate. That is why we think that clarifying scientific knowledge is useful for everyone. I was asked to give that explanation, not by German groups, but by Hungary. Hungary considers human dignity untouchable. The Hungarian doctors have asked me for my opinion, even though they believe the vaccine is useful.

For 30 years, Mainz was home to the institute of medical microbiology and hygiene, which I took charge of. The center for vaccinology was also located there. I have always been a supporter of vaccination. But that has nothing to do with today's situation. Today we are talking about the immunity and vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Then we were with a team that discussed all the problems together until there was a consensus.

We are now talking about the immunity against SARS-CoV-2 as described in the books.

The defense consists of two parts. One part are the antibodies that attach themselves to the 'spikes' of the virus and thereby prevent the virus from attaching itself to the cells. If the virus does get into the cell, it can multiply there. During this process, waste products of the virus appear on the surface of the cell that are recognized by lymphocytes.
These killer lymphocytes destroy the cells that contain the virus. This extinguishes the fire and heals the patient.
Many people do not understand this strategy well. Many different antibodies are formed against the virus, all of which target the virus in a different place, but only the antibodies against the 'spikes' of the virus protect us against infection. The others don't protect us but are there.

What is the use of antibodies?
1. Absence of antibodies does not prove that no infection has occurred, nor is there no absence of immunity. Many antibodies are often found in seriously ill patients and vice versa.
2. The presence of antibodies does not prove that one is immune or cannot become ill, because not only the protective antibodies are detected;
3. Sufficient antibodies must be present to neutralize ALL viruses and ALL spikes, otherwise infection will continue.
Vaccines can only be useful when ENOUGH antibodies are formed and available to neutralize ALL viruses.
What is the role of lymphocytes? They recognize parts of viruses that are presented on the surface of the cells.

What is the role of antibodies versus lymphocytes? The lymphocytes have a memory (for the viruses they already encountered).
The question is: which system plays the most important role in the defense against viruses: antibodies or lymphocytes? I think the corona story has given us the answer to that question. The protection provided by a vaccine depends on the ratio between the amount of antibodies produced and the amount of viruses. The presence of antibodies in itself is no guarantee at all for the presence of immunity! Actually, the presence of antibodies as proof of immunity is completely nonsense!

The production of antibodies is very temporary; after a few months, the protection provided by these antibodies is already so small that even a limited contamination with viruses will break through. Asking for proof of immunity is actually pointless. The answer to the question of whether you are protected by your antibodies will probably generally be: “Probably not anymore”. The comparison with flu viruses is not valid.

With a re-infection, the antibodies quickly flare up but also quickly fall again.
In the case of influenza viruses, the cells can exchange genes between different viruses. In coronaviruses there is little or no exchange for genes that program the spikes.
Immunity from T cells (lymphocytes) lasts much longer, for years.

Do people have cross-immunity to SARS-CoV-2? T cells still recognize old infections with other coronaviruses after years. This has been demonstrated (Hans-Georg Rammensee, Tübingen). They took blood samples from 180 Covid-infected people and 185 samples from people infected by coronaviruses before the SARS-CoV-2 era (2007-2019). 80% of them were protected by reactive T cells that recognize and thus protect SARS-CoV-2 by cross-reacting against these ancient corona infections. 100% of people who survive their SARS-CoV-2 infection without symptoms have reactive T cells! Thus, the infection by SARS-CoV-2 has been nothing more than a refresh of their immunity to all coronaviruses.

Is this why 40-50% of current corona infections have gone without any symptoms, and 30-40% without serious symptoms? According to the Robert Koch Institute, only 17% of infections had to be treated in a hospital, and only 1.3% in intensive care. About 85% of the German population is therefore already sufficiently protected against the new corona infection. That's Herd Immunity! Immunity does not mean: not to be infected, but to be protected against the disease!

Who is threatened by the virus? The mortality rate is only 0.15 to 0.2%. People under the age of 65 practically never die (0.005% or 1 / 20,000). Above 80 years the mortality rate is much higher: 1 to 2%, but do they die BY corona or WITH corona ???. 100 to 150 / 10,000 people over eighty die of respiratory problems. The death rate from Covid-19 is thus on the order of any flu epidemic, or other viruses, or bacterial infections. So Covid-19 is no more dangerous than a regular seasonal flu or a moderately severe flu. Even without measures, the number of deaths would have been completely insignificant in percentage terms.
So should we vaccinate or not?

Vaccines save human life but are not effective against all infections. With any vaccine, one must weigh the pros and cons. If there is a high mortality rate or a high percentage of claims, and if vaccination offers a high percentage of protection (eg tetanus), then vacination makes sense; when the mortality rate is low and protection is low, as with SARS-CoV-2, do they have the right to carry out mass vaccination? No!

A covid vaccine is essentially different from other vaccines. With other vaccines, an antigen is injected on which antibodies are formed. With gene-based vaccines such as the corona vaccine, no antigens (proteins) are injected, but the virus gene that causes our body to produce antigens, against which we then have to produce antibodies. The benefit of any conventional vaccine must be demonstrated with great care, and this will take at least 5 to 10 years. After all, there is no vaccine without risks. Anyone who believes that is, to my regret, very naive.

There is an example in history where all security measures were thrown overboard. That was the swine flu of 2009-2010. When the whole world was just as panicked as it is today with SARS-CoV-2. The pandemic automaticity gripped the world for almost a year. A gigantic vaccination program should have offered relief. In the end, it was just a fairly harmless virus strain. This can be read on March 12, 2010 at 13h38. A German professor predicted 35,000 deaths in Germany. How did it come to such a worldwide hysteria then? In Europe, people were wildly enthusiastic about the vaccine. Germany has bought 60 million doses of the vaccine, Sweden, England and France have vaccinated the entire population. But many Germans have refused the vaccine because the death rate was below zero. 02%. Mostly elderly people died, not young people, just as with SARS-CoV-2. After months, the most serious side effects of the vaccine, catastrophic, were found with a frequency of 1 / 10,000. 2,000 cases of narcolepsy in Northern Europe out of 20 million vaccinations, mainly in young people and children. Across Europe there were about 2,000 people with narcolepsy whose lives were being destroyed. In Germany there were hardly any cases of narcolepsy in young people because they had not been vaccinated. The vaccine would have been of no use to anyone. Across Europe there were about 2,000 people with narcolepsy whose lives were destroyed. In Germany there were hardly any cases of narcolepsy in young people because they had not been vaccinated. The vaccine would have been of no use to anyone. Across Europe there were about 2,000 people with narcolepsy whose lives were being destroyed. In Germany there were hardly any cases of narcolepsy in young people because they had not been vaccinated. The vaccine would have been of no use to anyone.

I would like to conclude with a word about immune-enhancing substances in vaccines, the so-called adjuvants. They are potentially dangerous. Currently, my hypothesis is that adjuvants enhance cytokines that promote inflammatory responses. The inflammatory response caused by the virus is fueled by the adjuvants. We know that the T lymphocytes inhibit the secretion of cytokines. This inhibitory influence on the inflammatory response by coronaviruses is destroyed by the adjuvants, leading to an enhancement of the inflammatory response, which is not good. Compare with the Spanish flu in 1918 when 4.1 million soldiers were vaccinated against typhus between 1917 and 1918. In 1918, 50,000 to 100,000 soldiers died from the disease, and 1 million of them were no longer able to participate in the battle. Was the vaccine the cause of this? I don't know, but let's talk about it.
In Italy there is a mandatory vaccination against 10 different diseases. Italy has the largest compulsory vaccination program in the world. Still, the death rate in Italy is among the highest in the world.

Believe me, when you get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 with a conventional vaccine you will get adjuvants in your body and then I don't know if another wave of coronaviruses or a common flu virus will arrive in the fall, it will fare better or worse for you.

Finally this: this vaccine is gene-based. Is that dangerous or not? According to my theoretical understanding it is extremely dangerous. Why? When a virus infects our cells, the 'spikes' are broken down somewhere, resulting in waste products that are offered to the surface of the cell. They are recognized by lymphocytes, killer cells. Remember that 80% of you young people have killer cells that are willing to attack, and that can only lead to autoimmune reactions, there's no other way because that's how the immune system works, and that's so important to me . That is why doctors and scientists must now talk together about whether this danger really exists, because if we don't, we are failing to fulfill our primal obligation.

The usefulness of the vaccine in persons under the age of 65 is with absolute certainty zero! Any risk is too much !! The risk in people over 65 is possible, but this must be demonstrated after extensive testing, and not in healthy young people. The safety of the vaccine must be demonstrated precisely in the elderly. Without this evidence, no one can demonstrate that the benefit-risk ratio of the vaccine is justified. The ongoing studies with gene-based vaccines so far point to dangers, real dangers. They are unethical because they are so dangerous and those dangers have not been taken into account. They are experiments on humans, and no prior extensive testing has taken place. Remember, do you want these images (of the swine flu 2009) to repeat themselves? Can we vaccinate people who are not at risk? Can we vaccinate 7 billion people in this world no matter how old they are? Give us the answer. Even if you have a different opinion, let us talk about this. I count on the population to engage in a real discussion; You may not say… but if you do, it is not good, because you are not only doing that for yourself, any more than that I am giving this lecture for myself. I will not be vaccinated. I will never be vaccinated. But I do this for my children, for my grandchildren, and for you, and for the doctors in the hope that they can keep their good reputation. Protect your health and that of your children. You may not say… but if you do, it is not good, because you are not only doing that for yourself, any more than that I am giving this lecture for myself. I will not be vaccinated. I will never be vaccinated. But I do this for my children, for my grandchildren, and for you, and for the doctors in the hope that they can keep their good reputation. Protect your health and that of your children. You may not say… but if you do, it is not good, because you are not only doing that for yourself, any more than that I am giving this lecture for myself. I will not be vaccinated. I will never be vaccinated. But I do this for my children, for my grandchildren, and for you, and for the doctors in the hope that they can keep their good reputation. Protect your health and that of your children.

My last call is to the doctors. I am proud to be with you today in Budapest with my colleagues, also with those who have a different opinion, that I can discuss with them because it is our duty to discuss, because we are obliged to to consult and act to the best of their ability.
See you again, and I wish you all the best.

 

[Absolem]

Hard to beleive people would rather believe bogus shit from the Gateway Pundit, Infowars, or frauds like Judy Mikovits over places like the Mayo clinic or Harvard University. Majority of the misinformation on covid vaccines can mainly be traced to Judy Mikovits and her debunked 2009 study which she was fired over for committing fraud.

https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.o...myths-debunked

Myth: COVID-19 vaccines will alter my DNA.


Fact: The first COVID-19 vaccines to reach the market are likely to be messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines. According to the CDC, mRNA vaccines work by instructing cells in the body how to make a protein that triggers an immune response. Injecting mRNA into your body will not interact or do anything to the DNA of your cells. Human cells break down and get rid of the mRNA soon after they have finished using the instructions.



https://www.health.harvard.edu/coron...ing%20proteins.

Could an mRNA vaccine change my DNA?

An mRNA vaccine — the first COVID-19 vaccine to be granted emergency use authorization (EUA) by the FDA — cannot change your DNA.

mRNA, or messenger RNA, is genetic material that contains instructions for making proteins. mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 contain man-made mRNA. Inside the body, the mRNA enters human cells and instructs them to produce the "spike" protein found on the surface of the COVID-19 virus. Soon after a cell makes the spike protein, the cell breaks down the mRNA into harmless pieces. At no point does the mRNA enter the cell's nucleus, which is where our genetic material (DNA) lives.

The immune system recognizes the spike protein as an invader and produces antibodies against it. If the antibodies later encounter the actual virus, they are ready to recognize and destroy it before it causes illness.

 

[mexcurandero420]

Hard to beleive people would rather believe bogus shit from the Gateway Pundit, Infowars, or frauds like Judy Mikovits over places like the Mayo clinic or Harvard University. Majority of the misinformation on covid vaccines can mainly be traced to Judy Mikovits and her debunked 2009 study which she was fired over for committing fraud.

https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.o...myths-debunked

Myth: COVID-19 vaccines will alter my DNA.


Fact: The first COVID-19 vaccines to reach the market are likely to be messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines. According to the CDC, mRNA vaccines work by instructing cells in the body how to make a protein that triggers an immune response. Injecting mRNA into your body will not interact or do anything to the DNA of your cells. Human cells break down and get rid of the mRNA soon after they have finished using the instructions.



https://www.health.harvard.edu/coron...ing%20proteins.

Could an mRNA vaccine change my DNA?

An mRNA vaccine — the first COVID-19 vaccine to be granted emergency use authorization (EUA) by the FDA — cannot change your DNA.

mRNA, or messenger RNA, is genetic material that contains instructions for making proteins. mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 contain man-made mRNA. Inside the body, the mRNA enters human cells and instructs them to produce the "spike" protein found on the surface of the COVID-19 virus. Soon after a cell makes the spike protein, the cell breaks down the mRNA into harmless pieces. At no point does the mRNA enter the cell's nucleus, which is where our genetic material (DNA) lives.

The immune system recognizes the spike protein as an invader and produces antibodies against it. If the antibodies later encounter the actual virus, they are ready to recognize and destroy it before it causes illness.

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2018/08/OPP1189406