Largest Covid Vaccine Study Yet Finds Links to Health Conditions

Discussion in 'Coronavirus Pandemic Discussions' started by Kal'Stang, Feb 19, 2024.

PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening. We urge you to seek reliable alternate sources to verify information you read in this forum.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Thats not correct because we are talking about lipid 'nanoparticles' and it pulls anything its wrapped around into the cells including DNA and this is not natural RNA they created a 'synthetic' RNA foreign to the human body by doping it with N1-Methylpseudouridine.

    There there is this:

    Pfizer Deliberately Deceived Regulators About SV40 Contamination of COVID Shots, Scientist Says

    Kevin McKernan, chief scientific officer and founder of Medicinal Genomics — who identified the presence of SV40 contaminants in the mRNA vaccines — explained during an episode of “Good Morning CHD” how the contaminant plasmids got into the vaccines, and how he thinks Pfizer hid the contamination from regulators.
    By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.

    Did Pfizer deliberately deceive regulators about contamination of its COVID-19 vaccine? Yes, according to Kevin McKernan, chief scientific officer and founder of Medicinal Genomics.

    Appearing on CHD.TV with Children’s Health Defense (CHD) President Mary Holland and Brian Hooker, Ph.D., CHD’s senior director of science and research, McKernan explained how Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is contaminated with plasmid DNA, which should not be present in an mRNA vaccine.

    He said this raises concerns that the plasmid DNA could lead to cancers or autoimmune issues in some vaccine recipients.

    McKernan said that annotating Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine sequence with a simple online tool — which any trained person can do — reveals the presence of DNA from simian virus 40 (SV40).

    But in the data it gave to regulators, Pfizer deleted the annotation of the SV40 DNA and did not disclose its presence. That deletion, McKernan said, shows “intent to deceive.”

    This raises serious questions about the vaccine’s safety that must be investigated, McKernan said. It also suggests major problems with the mRNA vaccine regulatory process.

    After McKernan’s lab made its findings public, and other researchers confirmed them, Health Canada also confirmed that the Pfizer vaccine contains this DNA. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has neither confirmed nor denied the presence of these billions of plasmid DNA fragments in Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

    The FDA told reporter Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., who questioned the agency on the issue, that it remains “confident in the quality, safety, and effectiveness of these vaccines.”

    McKernan and his team stumbled accidentally on what Holland called an “incredibly important finding” when they used the RNA from the Pfizer vaccine — which they assumed was a functional pharmaceutical grade RNA — as a control to test the RNA purification system they were using in other work the lab was conducting.

    In the process, they tested vaccines and found that instead of only containing mRNA, the Pfizer vaccines also contained DNA plasmids — small, circular, double-stranded DNA molecules distinct from a cell’s chromosomal DNA.

    How did the contaminant DNA get into the vaccines?

    McKernan explained that to synthesize the RNA for the vaccines, labs use a process called “in vitro transcription” whereby an RNA-making enzyme called an RNA polymerase uses a DNA template to synthesize RNA molecules.

    “It’s like the ink for your Xerox machine,” McKernan said.

    But the DNA first has to be amplified. For the clinical trials, Pfizer amplified the DNA using PCR (polymerase chain reaction), a method it called “Process 1.” McKernan said this process is ideal because it amplifies the DNA a millionfold. As a result, “There’s no residual background. You get a really clean piece of DNA that you can make your RNA from.”

    But to scale up the process to mass produce vaccines for the public, McKernan said, Pfizer did a “bait-and-switch,” producing the vaccines using “Process 2.”

    Process 2 includes “changes to the DNA template used to transcribe the RNA and the purification phase, as well as the manufacturing process of the lipid nanoparticles,” Josh Gueztkow and Retsef Levin wrote in a letter, published in the BMJ, which raised concerns with the process.

    For Process 2, rather than amplifying DNA with PCR to make the template, vaccine makers amplified the DNA by plugging it into a bacterial plasmid vector, which uses E. coli for rapid amplification, but runs the risk of introducing sequences not present in the initial DNA, McKernan said.

    This creates a practically infinite supply of DNA much more cheaply and easily than using PCR, he added.

    But this DNA template comes with additional risk because the DNA of the plasmid used to create the template has to be removed from the vaccine before it can be injected into people.

    He said it is clear the vaccine makers tried to get rid of that DNA by “chewing it up with an enzyme” called deoxyribonuclease, or DNase, which breaks down DNA, but they failed to eliminate it completely.


    Why didn’t the DNA-destroying enzymes eliminate the DNA?

    McKernan told Holland and Hooker the DNase failed to fully eliminate the contaminant DNA fragments from the vaccines delivered to the market because of the modifications they made to the RNA in order to make the mRNA vaccines function, and because of “blind spots” in how they measured the amount of residual DNA.

    To make the mRNA vaccines work the way they wanted to, the vaccine designers had to make the RNA slightly more durable than usual, he said.

    DNA, he said, is like a hard drive — it’s a long-lived form of information storage. RNA is temporary — like the task manager of the programs that are opening and closing on the hard drive.

    Those programs and the RNA itself, get turned on and off. For RNA, an enzyme called RNase functions as an on/off switch.

    The makers of the mRNA vaccines added a nucleotide, N1-Methylpseudouridine, that stopped the RNA from turning off right away so it would remain present to ensure the spike protein was produced “long enough to matter,” McKernan said.

    That made the RNA “extraordinarily sticky,” so when the RNA polymerase copies the RNA off of the DNA template, it accidentally makes some RNA-DNA hybrids, a triple helix.

    In that context, the DNase enzyme that was supposed to get rid of the template DNA can’t function properly.

    snip

    “They are playing some games” with these measuring tools, McKernan said, because regulators will want them to have high RNA numbers and low DNA numbers — and by measuring RNA and DNA with different tools, that’s exactly what they get.

    That, he said, suggests “intent to deceive.”
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2024
  2. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    1,683
    Likes Received:
    823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    The authors of this article are heavily biased to begin with. The lead author is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with no expertise related to vaccines, immunotherapy, or any other related field. Three of the authors are associated with the “Children’s Health Defense” which is group known to produce misinformation related to vaccines and therefore biased. The journal the article is published in is on the predatory journal list which probably means none of the top journals would touch it with a ten foot pole. ‘Peer-reviewed’ in a predatory journal means little to nothing.

    The article does not present ‘evidence’, it is a literature review which offers an overview of existing research that they chose to include. Some to the ‘research’ they included were opinion articles. The also offered misleading interpretation of proper research.

    I will summarize the paper briefly.

    The authors state that spike protein ‘can’ be toxic to many organs. ‘Can be’ does not translate into research that demonstrates the spike protein is toxic to many organs. Therefore, any person making causal statements related to the spike proteins is posting erroneous information.

    They state that the mRNA covid vaccines ‘can’ induce a wide variety of diseases. Again ‘can’ doesn’t mean they actually do produce a wide variety of diseases. In fact, they have produced no research articles that have demonstrated a correlation between spike proteins and organ toxicity nor that spike proteins causing any disease. They don’t do their own research.

    The authors presented some very dodgy information. They attempted to connect spike proteins to prions by stating that a person who received the vaccine got Creutzfieldt-Jakob disease just 5 days post vaccine. They didn’t include a reference to that statement. They also omitted the fact that the incubation for prion diseases is years or decades, not five days. So extremely dishonest and misleading.

    They included two references that were opinion articles lifted off the internet. Not appropriate in real peer-reviewed journals.

    They included a paper that was a computer prediction with no real-world data on spike proteins. Therefore, can’t be used as proof of anything.

    They cited a paper where they stated spike proteins crossed the blood brain barrier in mice without mentioning the mice were genetically engineered to have no blood brain barriers. A truly misleading statement.

    The falsely stated that the spike protein disrupts the blood brain barrier, but the authors in the paper they cited stated that they were referring to the virus not the spike protein. The also stated the virus appears to downregulates the BBB, not disrupt it.

    The authors used information from a research paper about CNS damage in Alzheimer’s disease due to SARS-CoV-2 infection and tried to link it to vaccines. The authors of the paper about CNS damage emphasized in their abstract that their findings did not apply to vaccines.

    You can’t trust anything in a paper when there is misleading and outright wrong information presented. This paper should not have passed peer review.

    You can’t just cherry pick comments from a misleading article post them in bolded red and make statements of evidence. Just because an opinion agrees with Malone’s doesn’t make it true.

    It’s pretty well pointless to discuss anything with you because you merely respond by dumping quotes steeped in misinformation and avoid answering questions. You are misrepresenting opinions as facts — when a somebody says ‘can’ or ‘could’, it does not mean ‘does’. That isn’t proof, yet you are totally and disingenuously posting opinions as fact when there is no research out there that has conclusively proven any of your claims.
     
  3. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    1,683
    Likes Received:
    823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Suggesting “intent to deceive” isn’t proof of anything. McKernan is extremely critical of vaccines but the problem here is that I don’t see any independent interpretations of McKernan’s comments. His work requires follow-up by the broader bioinformatics community. This is only an interpretation by McKernan to suggest otherwise is deceptive and manipulative.
     
  4. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Geezus even Canada.gov found the same results, I think the opinion is slightly larger than a couple independent labs.
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,603
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Another huge post completely ignored. This is just pathetic "debating". We're being given the runaround by somebody who doesn't want to honestly respond to any rebuttal!
     
  6. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    1,683
    Likes Received:
    823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Provide a link.
     
  7. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    1,683
    Likes Received:
    823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Please provide a link as requested to support your statement. By the way, the Canadian government website is canada.ca not canada.gov.

    And stating Canada found the same results is an outright fabrication.

    https://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca...cle_c0bd8391-4ca6-54bf-905a-e0c105f666f3.html

    https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33ZK3GM
     
  8. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    another huge post completely ignored
     
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Admission of Epic Proportions’: Health Canada Confirms DNA Plasmid Contamination of COVID Vaccines


    Health Canada on Thursday confirmed the presence of DNA contamination in Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines and also confirmed that Pfizer did not disclose the contamination to the public health authority.

    By
    Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. 126

    In what one scientist described as an “admission of epic proportions,” Health Canada on Thursday confirmed the presence of DNA contamination in Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines, and also confirmed that Pfizer did not disclose the contamination to the public health authority.

    The DNA contamination includes the Simian Virus 40 (SV40) promoter and enhancer Pfizer did not previously disclose and that some experts say is a cancer risk due to potential integration with the human genome.

    Health Canada, the country’s public health authority, told The Epoch Times that while Pfizer provided the full DNA sequences of the plasmid in its vaccine at the time of the initial submission, the vaccine maker “did not specifically identify the SV40 sequence.”

    “Health Canada expects sponsors to identify any biologically functional DNA sequences within a plasmid (such as an SV40 enhancer) at the time of submission,” it said.

    Health Canada’s admission came after two scientists, Kevin McKernan and Phillip J. Buckhaults, Ph.D., discovered the presence of bacterial plasmid DNA in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines at levels potentially 18-70 times higher than the limits set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency.

    They tested four expired Pfizer and Moderna vaccine vials “thought to only contain mRNA” and found to contain “double-stranded DNA plasmids.”

    Health Canada said, “We have concluded that the risk/benefit profile continues to support the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine,” and that it does rely on manufacturer claims but “conducts an in-depth independent review” to make sure the vaccines meet “our high standards for safety, efficacy and quality.”

    Janci Lindsay, Ph.D., director of toxicology and molecular biology for Toxicology Support Services, told The Defender this statement is “silly, not believable and not defendable,” adding that “We should not have to do the research that they should have done.”

    “Why are the FDA, CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and the mainstream media still silent about this?” asked Steve Kirsch, founder of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, adding that “the mainstream medical community is silent as well.”

    Viral immunologist Dr. Byram Bridle of the University of Guelph in Canada, commenting on Health Canada’s admission wrote on his Substack, “This is an admission of epic proportions.”

    Bridle also wrote:

    “One must wonder why Pfizer would not disclose the presence of a biologically functional DNA sequence to a health regulator. Pfizer was required to disclose to health regulatory agencies all of the bioactive sequences in the bacterial plasmid DNA that they used to manufacture their shots.”

    The contamination “would have been discovered sooner by independent researchers, but people were threatened with arrest if they supplied vials for analysis,” Kirsch said, claiming he faced threats if he “participated in trying to analyze the vials.”

    Bridle noted that it’s been “818 total days” since the University of Guelph banned him from accessing his office and laboratory for attempting to conduct similar research, while other researchers “have been the focus of attacks from many so-called ‘misinformation experts,’” even though none “have been able to refute their findings.” https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/canada-dna-contamination-pfizer-covid-vaccine/
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2024
  10. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,603
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only thing "epic" here are the lengths people go to to misinform people and the staggering gullibility of people who suck it up without checking anything!

    Posts misrepresent Health Canada statement on DNA in Covid vaccines (msn.com)
    This is misleading; the public health agency told AFP the posts misrepresent its position, and independent experts say the research does not prove the shots are dangerous.
    The posts build on the debunked narrative that Covid-19 vaccines contain harmful DNA particles that could alter recipients' genetics.

    "The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine does not contain simian virus 40 (SV40)," Health Canada told AFP in an October 27 statement. "The presence of the SV40 promoter enhancer sequence is not the same as the presence of the whole virus itself."

    Health Canada clarifies
    The fragment of SV40 DNA in Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine helps the "transcription" of mRNA during the production process. Manufacturers use such plasmids because "they are easy to replicate (copy) and reliably contain the target gene sequence," according to NHGRI.

    Michael Imperiale, a virologist at the University of Michigan, put it this way: "To make mRNA, you need DNA."

    Health Canada has pushed back on claims that the fragment is potentially harmful.

    "The SV40 promoter enhancer sequence was found to be a residual DNA fragment in Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine," the agency told AFP. "The fragment is inactive, has no functional role, and was measured to be consistently below the limit required by Health Canada and other international regulators."

    Imperiale confirmed that to AFP on November 1, saying it is "not unexpected that there would be a little bit of DNA" in the shot due to the manufacturing process and that such remnants are "inert" and harmless.

    Some of the posts circulating online falsely conflate the DNA element with SV40 itself to claim Covid-19 shots cause cancer.

    "Any claims that the presence of the SV40 promoter enhancer sequence is linked to an increased risk of cancer are unfounded," Health Canada said. "There is also no evidence to support that the presence of the full SV40 in any vaccine increases the risk of cancer or the acceleration of cancer in individuals."

    Pfizer spokesperson Kit Longley confirmed to AFP in an email October 30 that "specific, non-infectious parts of the SV40 sequence -- which are commonly used in the pharmaceutical industry -- are present in starting material used by Pfizer and BioNTech."

    He added that "small amounts of residual DNA can be found in several approved vaccines," such as influenza and hepatitis shots (archived here and here).

    Flawed research
    The claims stem from what experts say is a flawed paper following up on a similar report from earlier in 2023 -- neither of which is peer-reviewed.

    "The preprint paper cited here has numerous methodological and interpretation issues," said Pakes of the University of Toronto. "I would certainly wait until it was published in a peer-reviewed journal before giving it any credence."

    In an October 21 blog post (archived here), Wayne State University professor David Gorski outlined some of the flaws in the paper, which analyzed the presence of DNA in 27 mRNA vials from Pfizer and Moderna in Ontario, Canada.

    "By the authors' own measurements, the amount of DNA/vial fell below the (US Food and Drug Administration) guidance," he said. "They used a log scale to make the total DNA appear to be much closer to the FDA-recommended limit than it really is."

    For example, Gorski noted the researchers found the vial with the "very highest concentration of DNA" had "less than one-half the maximum DNA amount recommended by the FDA."
     
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Garbage test

    Sure they didnt sample the same vials. Rose analyzed several batches, some fell below, most were over, and a few were 100+ times grater then the FDA limit with active DNA.

    PLONK
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2024
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,603
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your opinion is noted and discarded.

    Plonk junk and evasion! Answer the damn post!
    ibid.
    Flawed research
    The claims stem from what experts say is a flawed paper following up on a similar report from earlier in 2023 -- neither of which is peer-reviewed.

    "The preprint paper cited here has numerous methodological and interpretation issues," said Pakes of the University of Toronto. "I would certainly wait until it was published in a peer-reviewed journal before giving it any credence."

    In an October 21 blog post (archived here), Wayne State University professor David Gorski outlined some of the flaws in the paper, which analyzed the presence of DNA in 27 mRNA vials from Pfizer and Moderna in Ontario, Canada.

    "By the authors' own measurements, the amount of DNA/vial fell below the (US Food and Drug Administration) guidance," he said. "They used a log scale to make the total DNA appear to be much closer to the FDA-recommended limit than it really is."

    For example, Gorski noted the researchers found the vial with the "very highest concentration of DNA" had "less than one-half the maximum DNA amount recommended by the FDA."
     
  13. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    1,683
    Likes Received:
    823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    It seems once again you are posting misinformation produced by anti-vaxxers. The debunking from unbiased scientists bears repeating.

     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2024
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are no unbiased scientists, its well known much of the data and testing done by Phizer et al is based in fraud. They stopped test prematurely and unblinded them.

    These are not antivaxers that is a false assessment. They are anti mRNA that uses N1-Methylpseudouridine.

    They are anti fraud its common knowledge the US data base is based testing content is highly manipulated which is why congress is investigating.

    Anyone with lab experience can replicate this:

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    There is no link, it came direct to me from the authors. This has been done by several independent labs and it does/can recombine. We know it can recombine beyond that who knows what damage it is doing. If you want more info you have to email him. There are at least 2 other labs maybe 3 that found the same results in various countries. PS, there is a high probability I will be going on vacation soon so you will have the threads all to yourselves.


     
  15. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    1,683
    Likes Received:
    823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Thank you for supporting my point that there is ABSOLUTELY no research that supports the link to cancer or any other nebulous harms despite the constant misinformation being spammed on various threads. It’s all opinion being presented as fact. Well, the fact is, it’s all conjecture and opinion. And once again you have posted conjecture and opinion with no actual real world data.

    Really, all you have is “We know it can recombine beyond that who knows what damage it is doing”. So much for all the causal statements you constantly spam.

    I for one won’t miss your constant stream of misinformation. Enjoy your vacation.
     
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure there is.
    You dont need research and proof beyond a shadow of doubt to prove the case.
    We have thousands of reports from doctors who cared for the same patient for years or watched people that were 100% cancer free die in a couple months. Now we have confirmation that the contamination enters into the genome leaving its DNA marker which is enough for any competent court, if its not enough for you not much left to argue about either way, cant convince anyone with unreasonable standards.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2024
  17. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,603
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is the thing with antivax lies. They totally ignore that the virus itself is 100s times worse than any potential or bullshit vaccine side-effect!
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,951
    Likes Received:
    1,891
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope we are looking at provaxer lies.
    I know several people tested positive for covid and they never knew they had it!

    I was only sick for a couple days, when my doc found out he asked me if Id come in just so he could check me out cuz he was sick for over 2 weeks and he had all his clot shots.

    The antivaxer agenda is where you find all the lies, after all Biden paid twitter to shut up all the experts that called foul ball.
     
  19. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,603
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It seems we are after a world record thread count, whilst ignoring all rebuttal.
     
  20. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    1,683
    Likes Received:
    823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    You actually do need research and some kind of proof to make a causal statement. Epidemiological research can actually reveal a lot about the vaccine and it certainly hasn’t shown any correlation between the vaccines and turbo cancer.

    Where are these ‘thousands’ of reports? I have not seen thousands of reports. I know many doctors and not one of them has commented on an explosion of cancer patients since the vaccines were rolled out. How do you know when people are 100% cancer free? Most people don’t show symptoms until a cancer is well advanced. Why did it take over two years for the effects of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima to start showing up after exposure to the massive amount of radiation? How do inactive fragments of DNA cause cancers within months and direct DNA destroying radiation didn’t?

    Where is your confirmation that any contamination has caused any cancer? Your thinking is that there is contamination so there must be cancer. That’s a huge and baseless leap with no actual proof . Every day we put foreign DNA into our bodies via eating? Does anyone say oh I just ate an apple now I’m going to get cancer. In terms of little pieces of DNA, our bodies clear them easily.

    I know people who tested positive for Covid and never knew they had it as well. That was a huge problem during the pandemic because asymptomatic carriers were unknowingly infecting people. People who do develop symptoms are infectious prior to developing symptoms. The purpose of the vaccines was to protect vulnerable people from developing severe symptoms. The first vaccine was extremely effective against the original strain of Covid and as the virus mutated it became less effective but still protective.

    I don’t what to think of a doctor who asks an infected patient to come to his office to get checked out. During the Pandemic patients with symptoms were told to stay inside to avoid infecting others. If a patient had certain symptoms they could speak to a doctor on their phone and instructions would go from there.

    The information you provide is all based on ‘could’ not ‘does’. You make statements that have no actual proof.
     
  21. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,603
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Also, where citations are used, more often than not they are cherry-picked out of context. We had a whole thread on a report that said the opposite of the claim!
     
  22. Paradoxical

    Paradoxical Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2024
    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Can you prove that the Covid vaccine saved lives?
     
  23. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    15,004
    Likes Received:
    4,951
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Prove" is something of a loaded term in this kind of context, but there is certainly at least as much evidence supporting the positive benefits of COVID vaccines, up to and including reducing death rates, as there is for their serious side effects.
     
  24. Paradoxical

    Paradoxical Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2024
    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    How is it then that so many people who weren't vaccinated did NOT die?
     
  25. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,603
    Likes Received:
    889
    Trophy Points:
    113

Share This Page