Red states/areas getting more Covid-19 deaths than blue states/areas

@GrayMan

https://www.houstonmethodist.org/blog/articles/2021/aug/does-covid-19-affect-male-fertility/

"consider this fact offered up by Dr. Wesley Long, assistant professor of Clinical Pathology and Genomic Medicine. "In the entire history of vaccines, there's never been a side effect that occurred more than two months after a vaccine was administered," Dr. Long says. "People are worried that some unknown side effect will occur 10 to 15 years down the line, but the truth is, that's never happened."

 

Beware of off-year elections. Just sayin'.....

 

Vaccines have always undergone years of testing and long term side effects didn't mean two weeks after you get a shot. We have long term effects from asbestos and other carcinogens that may manifest themselves in retirement or just prior. Your post is the kind of thing that keeps the questions alive and cause reluctance. We would have been better off had the government simply made the vaccines available and told the population we know it works and we wish you would get vaccinated. Instead, Biden keeps dragging out a bigger hammer not remembering that beating on metal only increases it's tensile strength. Leadership doesn't need a bullwhip.

 

Other vaccines don't use mRna to hijack your cells to produce the spike protein. Short term testing does not provide any evidence to long term results. You could have a 1,000,000 trillion tests over a one year period and it still will not give you any evidence as to what happens at 10 years down the road. How can they be sure that in having the mRNA enter the cell to have it produce the spike proteins, that it does not damage the cell and increase the chance of it becoming cancerous?
It could take awhile for that cell to become cancerous, replicate, and then become detectable. By the time it does, no one would be able to even back track it to the vaccine because no one did the long term testing to compare the placebo tests to the vaccine test groups. But I guess it would not matter to pziezer if it causes cancer since they are already developing the cure for cancer with the same technology.

 

Sorry but what you're saying is utterly ridiculous. How can we be sure? Well, by knowing how it actually works. It's complicated but I can explain (it will be long, though - I hope you won't react by saying TLDR, too long didn't read).

You not having any knowledge of virology, immunology, and oncology like me, I forgive you. Hijack the cells... talk about hyperbole. The mRNA from these vaccines does one thing and one thing only: it makes spike proteins (then rapidly degrades in a process called hydrolysis, which takes down the mRNA's ribose, within half a day to a few days). Cancer has nothing to do with this. A cancerous process would have to start from the cell nucleus and would be DNA-related, not from cytoplasmic mRNA. This vaccine's mRNA doesn't get any close to the cell nucleus and does not interact with the cell's DNA. Yes, mRNA can have a role in cancer, but it's the kind that comes from the nucleus, to the cytoplasm's ribosomes. For it to occur in a defective manner, the initial defect must reside within the DNA. The role of mRNA in cancer would be just, like the name indicates, a messenger one (the m in mRNA stands for messenger - if you think of the saying "don't shoot the messenger" you'll understand that it's not mRNA that causes cancer). It would carry from the nucleus to the cytoplasm, the wrong sequences codified by the altered DNA, and this could result for example in the cell not making some proteins that kill cancer cells, or increasing proteins that encourage cellular division. Again, it's a DNA-driven process. DNA carries the genetic code. mRNA executes the code; it doesn't change the code.

There is one exception to this, but it involves three different kinds of RNA that can malfunction: one that is called non-coding RNA (ncRNA), and two subtypes of these, which are called transfer RNA (tRNA) and micro RNA (miRNA). These types of RNA use portions of DNA that have not been encoded, and turn them into proteins. ncRNA can foster cancer metastases, and can interfere with response to cancer treatments. miRNA in high levels decreases the life expectancy of cancer patients.

But do notice that these are not mRNA. ncRNA, miRNA and tRNA are not the same thing as mRNA. People may read lay-press saying that RNA is involved in cancer... but they don't know the details about which ones.

As a lay person, you can engage in any sort of wild speculation like you're doing right now. Unlike me, a medical scientist with 41 years of experience, you don't know anything about this subject, and this blunder of a wild guess (that vaccine mRNA would cause cancer) betrays your extremely poor understanding of cellular processes. Which is fine; you're at no obligation to know it; I'm sure you know very well the topics that relate to your own profession.

No, there will be no late adverse reactions. Like I said, the mRNA degrades in 12 hours to at most a few days... only makes the spike proteins... does nothing else. These vaccines are extremely safe. After hydrolysis, what is left of the mRNA are harmless fragments that get digested.

The spike proteins made by the mRNA, though, last for a few weeks... and that's what can cause adverse reactions. But the spike protein breaks down too, and when it's gone, there isn't anything that would cause an adverse reaction. It's gone, kaput, there's zero left, it gets cleared by your T cells and other cells involved in phagocytosis. How can a substance that is NOT in your body cause a late reaction? After 2 months, there is no trace left.

What long term issues you believe in? Like I said, yes, there are adverse reactions, but they occur inside two months. If your body hasn't reacted poorly to the spike protein to trigger for example an autoimmune process that interferes with your platelets causing a TTS or thrombotic thrombocytopenic syndrome (an effect caused by the spike protein, not by the mRNA which isn't even there any longer), then it won't. Now, what you need to realize, is that if you avoid the vaccines for fear of a reaction to the spike protein, you may catch the virus instead. Rather than having a few units of the spike protein made by the vaccine, you'll have quadrillions made by the virus. Pray tell, what do you think is worse?

Which is why, for example, myocarditis and pericarditis, also considered to be a reaction to the spike protein, are mild and transient in the case of them being caused by the vaccines... but are a lot stronger and longer when they are caused by the virus. It's been estimated that 3 in each 10 people who get the virus develop myocarditis... some studies talk even of 1 in 2... while the vaccine causes it in something like 2 for each 1,000,000 people.

But if you prefer to take your chances with the quadrillions of spike proteins produced by the virus (yes, they are toxic to the endothelium) instead of a few copies made by the vaccine to prime your immune system to later zap the virus, be my guest. Believe in junk science instead of believing in a specialist (me) who is telling you how it works. Now, since you can't verify my credentials, you are at no obligation to believe me, and I can't change that; it's up to you. But for your own sake, you should.

 

I am not suggesting that mRNA alone could cause the issue. I suggested that mRNA in combination with the spike proteins being produced in the cell could cause the issue, especially since the spike proteins damages the cells and you are giving it a free ride to the center. Like alien vs having a baby. https://imgr.search.brave.com/KpRdw...LzIw/MTgvMTAvMTUvQ1BU/MTA3NTA1NzY2X2hk/LmpwZw. Some viruses do cause cancer.

It doesn't really matter though. All we have are educated hypothesis' on what can happen and what won't happen based scientist's current understanding of biology. Science is is about testing and observation. We don't have testing and observation of long term effects. There are still things we don't know that could change everything we think we know.

It's a very small chance I will get covid. Its been nearly two years and I haven't gotten sick. If I get the vaccine, its a guarantee that I will face those statistics you stated. Also, I would have to face those statistics every time I got the shot and its basically Russian roulette. I think I would rather just avoid getting covid. I have more control of that.

 

Russian roulette? For Russian Roulette you'd have a 1-in-6 chance of getting killed. These vaccines are lethal in about 0.00002% of the cases. That's zero until the 4th decimal case. It's much better odds than a Russian Roulette... Like I said, you seem to be prone to hyperboles. These vaccines, Russian Roulette??? Come on, man, what kind of junk science you're paying attention to??? Frankly, you have irrational fears of these vaccines. They are extremely safe, and much safer than most medications people take every day, which have odds of damaging a patient much higher than 0.00002%.

No, there won't be any long-term adverse reaction. Mark my words. These mRNA strings do not cause any damage and do not interfere with any process in the cell nucleus. Either you react badly to the spike protein while it is there (within the first two months) which occurs extremely rarely, or you're home free.

No, the spike protein doesn't mix with the mRNA. Like I said, the mRNA makes the spike proteins, then degrades. And mRNA like I said is not dangerous.

Yes, the spike protein can be toxic, but it happens in 2 cases in 1,000,000 (mildly), while for the virus, it happens in up to 50% of the cases.

Yes, VIRUSES can cause cancer (example, Epstein-Barr). Not these vaccines. These vaccines do not contain viruses. Viruses often invade the nucleus and mix with human DNA. These vaccines don't do that.

Very small chance that you'll get Covid? We had already 47 million cases... not counting the ones we haven't diagnosed (asymptomatic or mild cases that never thought medical attention). It's often estimated that we likely have had three times these 47 million... that is, 141 million people in a population of 331 million, close to half, and you call that, a small chance???

If you've been around, unvaccinated for two years, maybe you've already had an asymptomatic case.

You might have an interest in looking at the Ohio State University study of college athletes with mild or asymptomatic cases. 45.8% had heart damage.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2770645

This virus is way more dangerous than you think. More than 50% of survivors come out of it with at least one organ damaged by the virus. Compared to this, the risks of the vaccine are absolutely negligible.

Anyway, whatever. I tried my best to explain the science to you, but I think the odds that I'll convince you are small, unfortunately.

I hope you'll be safe. Good night.

 

Blacks have always been afraid of the government using them for science experiments. Gee, I wonder how they ever got that idea? Add to that, that all throughout the campaign, Democrats constantly told Americans not to trust the Trump rushed vaccine which was being developed far too fast without enough research. Then, all of a sudden, after Biden wins, we need to trust the vaccines as they are very safe. If Trump had won re-election he would have talked very few on his own side into getting the vaccine who would have been against the vaccines and, if Trump would have been re-elected, Democrats would have actually continually told people not to get the Trump rushed vaccine. How many times did the left say they would not get the vaccine based on Trump's words and yet the left wanted Trump to tell everyone to get the vaccine (after Biden was elected). Yes, they said they would only listen to the experts but it would have been Trump, Birx, and Jerome Adams telling people to get vaccinated. Would Democrats have listened to them? Fact is, if Trump had been re-elected, far less people would have been vaccinated than there are now and it would have all been the fault of Democrats.

 

false, democrats said trust the science, not trump, big difference

 

1. It's hypocritical to campaign saying don't trust Trump when it comes to vaccines and then blame Trump for not trying harder to get his supporters vaccinated.

2. If Trump had won re-election, the experts would have been Deborah Birx and Jerome Adams telling Americans to get the vaccine. Would the left have listened to those experts?

 

the guy pushing fake drugs and disinfectants and constantly lying about covid, no, saying to trust the science is the wise thing to do

 

So, if Trump had been re-elected and Deborah Birx and Jerome Adams had said go get the vaccine, you would have done it?

 

once is was approved, I would have done the same as I did under Biden, wait a couple of months, then if no issues, take it

I don't make my health choices based on which party is President

 

Many on the left would not have gotten the vax if Trump remained president and Birx and Adams told Americans it was ok to take. Most of the left would have claimed that Birx and Adams were just bowing down to Trump and couldn't be trusted.

 

most Americans would not care what party was in office

 

Most Americans want Republicans (and not RINOs either) in office.

 

Inversion Fallacy. It is the Democrats who are doing this.

... because you haven't ever tried to hear them. You haven't sought them out to listen to their stories and experiences. I have, and MANY people have suffered adverse reactions to these mRNA jabs.

No, it is a person being a critical thinker and being sensible about risk/benefit analysis as it pertains to their own situation.

Incomprehensible. Please translate to English.

Again, you refuse to seek out and listen to all of the people who have had long term effects from the mRNA jabs... Unfortunately, tens of thousands of people are unable to tell their story due to mRNA jab induced death or horrendous mRNA jab induced side effects that have left them in a state in which they are unable to speak.

Like what?

"Mandates wouldn't be required if people would just succumb to our will on their own"..... SERIOUSLY???? **** your tyranny, dude. I can't wait for the day that your tyranny gets thrown into the lake of fire.

Define "climate change"? How does climate, which is not quantifiable, somehow "change"??

F your tyranny. Stuff it where the sun don't shine.

Ummmm NO, no they aren't. The vaccines being jabbed into people's arms are NOT approved beyond EUA.

I could say the same to you. Set aside your radical left-wing extremist ideology for a second and start standing up for basic Creator-endowed human rights (such as the right to make one's own healthcare decisions).

Oh, and why are you denying women autonomy over their own bodies?? That's not very "liberal" of you, eh?

 

not true, most Americans as seen by the votes, want democrats, but sometimes the smaller states override that

 

yep, once the vaccine was approved, I would wait a couple of months, then take it if no one was having issues, same as I did under Biden

like I said, I do not make my health care decisions based on who is in power

dying to make the other guy look bad is not smart imo

many of those that want to make the other party look bad, my guess is they got the vaccine and are still pushing the anti-vax misinformation, they are not willing to risk their own lives, but their followers lives.... no problem

 

You keep on dodging the question. If Trump were re-elected and Birx and Adams said to get the vaccine, would the left do it?

 

It's still hypocritical of the left to campaign against Trump saying that Americans should not get the vaccine if Trump tells them too and then turn right around and blame Trump for not touting up vaccines enough, especially to his supporters.

 

not sure how many times I need to answer it

yep, once the vaccine was approved, I would wait a couple of months, then take it if no one was having issues, same as I did under Biden

like I said, I do not make my health care decisions based on who is in power

 

that is not what they said, they said they would wait for the experts

and I waited for the experts and then added a few months onto it, then got my vaccine in March\April

 

But that's assuming people are looking at things through the lens of politics. If they don't trust the Democrats, then why not listen to the Republicans? Why not have Republican leaders say they support the vaccine and encourage people to take them?

 

Like Ben Shapiro does? Government has the resources to get the correct information but lacks the trust of the people and 'non' government republican leaders lack the resources to be worth listening to but have the trust. I don't know, Trump had both the resources and the Trust but when he promoted the vaccine he was booed. His resources still come from the government and you cannot trust greedy corporations either, so....