Mandatory Vaccinations?

[Suave]

You'll have to forgive my skepticism, but I really do smell something very fishy about this guy. I've tried and tried to find out more about his scientific successes, but other than what he appears to have written about himself, there just isn't much.

Let me point out that if, as he states repeatedly, he "invented" the mRNA technology, this would be a hugely significant feat, and it should have been written up everywhere. But it isn't.

Have a read of this Wikepedia article on the development of mRNA vaccines. He is not mentioned, except in 3 quite marginal footnotes. In fact, he has no entry on Wikipedia at all. I did find a Reddit statement that he did not "invent" the technology, but contributed only a minor bit early on -- which the Wikipedia article seems to support.

Now, I did find a piece in the German Wikipedia on him. (why only German? Why not English?) And translated, it supports what I said above -- minor contributor, who shortly after his contribution, left the lab he was working in, started elsewhere and quit in a few months due to "personal differences," and then moved out of that area of science altogether.

Below is the beginning of the German Wiki entry, followed by the translation:

"Malone studierte Medizin an der Northwestern University mit dem Abschluss eines M.D., war Postdoktorand in klinischer Forschung an der Harvard University und erhielt seine Facharztausbildung in Pathologie an der University of California, Davis.[2] Als Doktorand am Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla war er einer der Hauptautoren und treibende Kraft einer Studie, in der erstmals beschrieben wurde, wie Proteinexpression in einer Fremdzelle über durch in Fettkügelchen (Liposomen) verpackte DNA bzw. RNA angestoßen werden kann, damals noch im Rahmen der Hoffnungen zur Gentherapie. Das gilt als erste wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung zu den grundlegenden Prinzipien zum Beispiel von RNA-Impfstoffen, die bei der Covid-19-Pandemie 2020/21 erfolgreich waren.[3][4] Ko-Autoren der grundlegenden Arbeit von 1989 waren Philip Felgner und Inder Verma.[5] In einer Folgearbeit, die ursprünglich nur zur Kontrolle der Übertragung mittels Liposomen diente, wurde erstmals gezeigt, dass auch „nackte“ ungeschützte m-RNA, die direkt in die Muskelzellen von Mäusen injiziert wurde, Proteinexpression in Zellen über einige Tage auslösen können.[6][4] Die entscheidenden Patente (siehe Schriftenverzeichnis, daran beteiligt war auch Philip Felgner, später Leiter des Zentrums für Impfstoffentwicklung an der University of California, Irvine) verblieben bei seiner arbeitgebenden Firma, das sie später weiterverkaufte. Er war vom Salk-Institut an einen anderen Arbeitgeber gewechselt[7] und dort schon nach drei Monaten wegen persönlicher Differenzen ausgeschieden.[3] Malone selbst wechselte bald darauf das Forschungsgebiet und arbeitete nicht weiter in dieser Richtung.[3]
Zurzeit (2021) lebt er in Madison (Virginia) und leitet eine eigene Beraterfirma."

"Malone studied medicine at Northwestern University with an M.D., was a postdoctoral fellow in clinical research at Harvard University, and received his residency in pathology from the University of California, Davis. [2] As a doctoral student at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, he was one of the main authors and driving force behind a study that described for the first time how protein expression in a foreign cell can be triggered by DNA or RNA packed in liposomes still in line with the hopes for gene therapy. This is considered to be the first scientific publication on the basic principles of, for example, RNA vaccines that were successful in the Covid-19 pandemic 2020/21. [3] [4] Co-authors of the basic paper from 1989 were Philip Felgner and Inder Verma. [5] In a follow-up study, which originally only served to control the transmission by means of liposomes, it was shown for the first time that "naked" unprotected m-RNA, which was injected directly into the muscle cells of mice, can trigger protein expression in cells over a period of several days. [6 ] [4] The decisive patents (see list of publications, also involved was Philip Felgner, later head of the Center for Vaccine Development at the University of California, Irvine) remained with his employer, which they later sold on. He moved from the Salk Institute to another employer [7] and left there after three months due to personal differences. [3] Malone himself changed the field of research soon after and did not work further in this direction. [3]

He currently (2021) lives in Madison (Virginia) and runs his own consulting company."

We may perhaps agree he at least significantly contributed with the development of mRNA based vaccines.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"The inventor of mRNA vaccines said 'the government is not being transparent about the risks' of the COVID-19 vaccine after YouTube deleted a video where he discussed potential risks for young adults and teens.

Dr. Robert Malone, who invented the mRNA technology that's now being used in the COVID-19 vaccine, told Fox's Tucker Carlson on Wednesday night that there isn't enough data about the risks for these age groups and doesn't believe they should be forced to get vaccinated.

'I don't think the benefits outweigh the risks in that cohort,' said Malone, referring to people in the 18 to 22 age bracket, 'but unfortunately the risk-benefit analysis is not being done.'

'My concern is I know there are risks but we don't have access to the data,' Malone said. 'And so, I am of the opinion that people have the right to decide whether to accept vaccines or not, especially since these are experimental vaccines.'"

mRNA inventor says young adults shouldn't have to get COVID vaccine

Fox News (and Tucker Carlson, really?) and the Daily Mail are poor sources of information.

 

[Suave]

Fox News (and Tucker Carlson, really?) and the Daily Mail are poor sources of information.

Perhaps we should consider MSN.com as being a reliable source. 'Single most qualified' mRNA expert speaks about vaccine risks after YouTube bans his video

 

[SkepticThinker]

I already tried that but they got taken down.....you aren't allowed to talk about these things apparently. You have only one side of the story, and no one is permitted to hear that it might be the wrong side.......too late for those who have already had the jab that they were led to believe was safe......no one has proven to date that there aren't any long term and potentially devastating outcomes that may be awaiting an unsuspecting public in the future.

So you somehow read some kind of "forbidden information" just before the Big Bad Wolf managed to take it down, because "we're not allowed to talk about these things" even as we're actually talking about them right now.

You need to go to scientific sources for scientific information. Not some dude's blog. Not some Talking Head's pundit page. Not YouTube videos.

YouTube is the only place where a voice can be heard but be quick, because the censors will be on the job making sure that as few people as possible see it.

YouTube is trash for this kind of stuff. Anybody can post anything they want there. Sources aren't verified or verifiable, hell, they aren't even known.

I have two friends who get all their info from YouTube and they are the biggest conspiracy theory nuts out there. Because they believe every single thing they see on YouTube without question, while simultaneously questioning actual peer-reviewed and vetted scientific information and experts. It's truly bizarre and backwards.

The last one I posted here, (which was quickly removed) was from the inventor of mRNA technology himself admitting that there were studies done in Japan (even before this vaccine was released) proving that there was a possibility of women getting unwanted outcomes down the track where lipids (the vaccine's delivery system) were found concentrated in the ovaries of women who had the mRNA vaccine......and they also found traces of these vaccine components in the bone marrow, where this doctor said it should have stayed in the muscle, but had traveled via the blood stream to places it was not supposed to go. When you hear these things from the experts and they are withheld from the public, what do you think might be the motive?
I will be surprised if my comments here remain.....

Yeah, that's the latest one floating around. Can you find and cite the study, or are you just going on unverified YouTube videos here?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Per CDC data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) demonstrating the risks of myocarditis or pericarditis to mRNA COVID-19 vaccinated young men and adolescent males. 323 reports on the VAERS website met the CDC’s working definition for heart inflammation (myocarditis or pericarditis). 309 of them were hospitalized, and nine of them are still in hospital, two of whom are in intensive care.

The incidence of heart inflammation among adolescent boys specifically (aged between 12 and 17) was 32 times higher among the vaccinated population (128 cases observed where 4 would otherwise be expected). In young men (aged between 18 and 24), the rate was more than 27 times higher (219 cases where 8 would otherwise have been expected).

Not a good source of data, as per the CDC itself.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Perhaps we should consider MSN.com as being a reliable source. 'Single most qualified' mRNA expert speaks about vaccine risks after YouTube bans his video

That's actually the Washington Examiner.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The funny thing about conspiracy theories is that some of them are actually true....they are all lumped in together so that you will assume that they are all rubbish.....tine will tell, won't it?

The thing about conspiracy theorists is that they always say this.

The links were taken down too. But it seems as if this is still on YouTube.....be quick before it disappears....

DarkHorse Podcast Clips


Please look up Dr Robert Malone and what his credentials are.....this is not a conspiracy theorist.

Seriously, don't get your information from YouTube videos if you want to be both well informed, and taken seriously.

 

[Suave]

That's actually the Washington Examiner.

OK, the link was provided by msn.com. What Dr. Robert Malone had stated is actually recorded starting at 8:06 of this You Tube video clip.

 

[SkepticThinker]

309 hospitalizations for heart inflammation among C.O.V.I.D.-19 mRNA vaccinated young adult males and adolescent males in comparison to 8 among an equal amount of the non-vaccinated; this should draw a red flag, which this has by the FDA requiring warning of this adverse side effect from being vaccinated.

VAERS isn't an accurate source of data on the COVID vaccine.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So you read somehow read some kind of "forbidden information" just before the Big Bad Wolf managed to take it down, because "we're not allowed to talk about these things" even as we're actually talking about them right now.

You need to go to scientific sources for scientific information. Not some dude's blog. Not some Talking Head's pundit page. Not YouTube videos.



YouTube is trash for this kind of stuff. Anybody can post anything they want there. Sources aren't verified or verifiable, hell, they aren't even known.

I have two friends who get all their info from YouTube and they are the biggest conspiracy theory nuts out there. Because they believe every single thing they see on YouTube without question, while simultaneously questioning actual peer-reviewed and vetted scientific information and experts. It's truly bizarre and backwards.


Yeah, that's the latest one floating around. Can you find and cite the study, or are you just going on unverified YouTube videos here?

I try and I try and I try, but for so many people, once they've got an idée fixe, you aren't going to get them to give it up. Facts are not what they want -- validation is all they crave.

I posted a link (RNA vaccine - Wikipedia) that clearly shows that this Dr. Robert Malone -- although having contributed some very early basic research -- was OUT OF THE GAME while others worked through the issues that eventually made the mRNA vaccine a workable reality.

 

[tytlyf]

I try and I try and I try, but for so many people, once they've got an idée fixe, you aren't going to get them to give it up. Facts are not what they want -- validation is all they crave.

I posted a link (RNA vaccine - Wikipedia) that clearly shows that this Dr. Robert Malone -- although having contributed some very early basic research -- was OUT OF THE GAME while others worked through the issues that eventually made the mRNA vaccine a workable reality.

How convenient for the usual suspects to leave that information out.
The audience won't look it up either.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Some nurses refused because they feel "it's their body, their choice." Others say (so quickly researched) that they don't want to take experimental drugs. Maybe other nurses have political agendas and others do not.

There's a varied of reasons. I find the my body, my choice (without the political flare) reasonable and I definitely feel a non-approved FDA experimental drug is a good reason not to take the vaccine.



Above.

My question is, whose criteria of validation are you going off of?




That's my point. You can say the reasons I gave above is invalid, but that's your opinion.

I'm not sure what other point you're making because I'm not trying to change your opinions.



Assumptions aren't facts.

You'd have to do what you just did above-clarification to make your point without the accusational tone. Your tone really messes up your points. That, and if you only use your criteria for validation, you can assume I'm deflecting but it won't be true unless you can prove it. Which is hard to do online--all we can do is talk it out. Takes patience.

My sister is a home care nurse who tends to children with chronic illnesses. Before she could practice in any setting at all, she was required to be fully vaccinated (MMR, diptheria, tetanus, you name it). When she works in a particular setting that may require extra protection (e.g. a hospital ward where there is an outbreak of a virus where she is required to wear a full body suit with mask and all), she is required to wear it, or she doesn't get to enter that setting. In other words, if she doesn't follow the strict protocols, she doesn't get to work as a nurse. It has been that way since she began nursing about 15 years ago.

Never have I ever heard her complain about her freedoms to wear whatever she wants (or doesn't want) or to have a job without following the requirements for that job. None of this "my body, my choice" stuff. Nothing. Not a peep. Because she realizes those protocols are a necessary part of her job in keeping her patients safe, as well as herself and her family. I have no idea what these nurses who refused to get vaccinated are thinking, but it seems selfish and dangerous to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK, the link was provided by msn.com. What Dr. Robert Malone had stated is actually recorded starting at 8:06 of this You Tube video clip.

I don't watch Tucker Carlson anymore.
He's a full-of-crap blowhard.

 

[Suave]

VAERS isn't an accurate source of data on the COVID vaccine.

Of course, it's way too early to know how many mRNA C.O.V.I.D-19 vaccinated young men and adolescent males will end up dying from myocarditis or pericarditis by vaccination.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I try and I try and I try, but for so many people, once they've got an idée fixe, you aren't going to get them to give it up. Facts are not what they want -- validation is all they crave.

I posted a link (RNA vaccine - Wikipedia) that clearly shows that this Dr. Robert Malone -- although having contributed some very early basic research -- was OUT OF THE GAME while others worked through the issues that eventually made the mRNA vaccine a workable reality.

I think you've hit the nail on the head (from my experience, anway).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course, it's way too early to know how many mRNA C.O.V.I.D-19 vaccinated young men and adolescent males will end up dying from myocarditis or pericarditis by vaccination.

Yes it is. So in the meantime, let's not get our data points from inaccurate sources.

 

[Suave]

I don't watch Tucker Carlson anymore.
He's a full-of-crap blowhard.

I figured you might not like watching the program's host, that is why I mentioned the point at which Dr. Robert Malone entered into the conversation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some nurses refused because they feel "it's their body, their choice."

This isn't a reason on its own. Yes, they have the right to decide to be vaccinated or not, but this doesn't mean that:

- their decision to refuse the vaccine was wise, or
- they're entitled to still have direct contact with patients after they refuse the vaccine.

Others say (so quickly researched) that they don't want to take experimental drugs.

What steps in the normal approval process do you think were skipped?

Maybe other nurses have political agendas and others do not.

Which political agendas do you think are intelligent and valid reasons to refuse the vaccine?

There's a varied of reasons. I find the my body, my choice (without the political flare) reasonable and I definitely feel a non-approved FDA experimental drug is a good reason not to take the vaccine.

Again: "my body, my choice" isn't a justification. It's an assertion that you have the right to decide for yourself. It says nothing about what decision you ought to make.

Above.

My question is, whose criteria of validation are you going off of?




That's my point. You can say the reasons I gave above is invalid, but that's your opinion.

That's right. Do you think I said otherwise?

I'm not sure what other point you're making because I'm not trying to change your opinions.

Could have fooled me.

Assumptions aren't facts.

You'd have to do what you just did above-clarification to make your point without the accusational tone. Your tone really messes up your points. That, and if you only use your criteria for validation, you can assume I'm deflecting but it won't be true unless you can prove it. Which is hard to do online--all we can do is talk it out. Takes patience.

I'm not looking to prove anything. I'm just forming my own personal opinion of your character. You're free to form your own opinion of mine.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This isn't a reason on its own. Yes, they have the right to decide to be vaccinated or not, but this doesn't mean that:

- their decision to refuse the vaccine was wise, or
- they're entitled to still have direct contact with patients after they refuse the vaccine.

Originally somewhere in the beginning of this thread I said I didn't care for how the hospital gave the ultimatum and how people lost their jobs. It wasn't specific about the reasons why nurses don't want to take the vaccine-though, I can empathize with them "too."

What steps in the normal approval process do you think were skipped?

They actually say it is experimental. What is wrong with that for provaxxers???

Experimental or clinical trial or however you put it, it's still being tested on people-youth now-as we speak.
What we know and don't know about the COVID-19 vaccine | wthr.com
CoVPN | Walgreens

There is still much more to know...

I'm honestly not sure why you would disagree with this or challenge it. It doesn't need to be a valid reason for you, but that doesn't exclude its still experimental.... you'd have to take into consideration the world involvement in making vaccines that are work better and adapting ones we have to be more efficient. All of this is experimental.

What am I missing?

Which political agendas do you think are intelligent and valid reasons to refuse the vaccine?

Political agendas? The only ones I can think of that's "out there" are things like Chinese government conspiracy and how China created the virus. The censoring, though, kind of puts up a red flag among other things. But honestly, it's probably because they don't want to start a panic.

I don't look into political agendas. I find it odd, though, when I come across one I share some agreement and just laugh.

Again: "my body, my choice" isn't a justification. It's an assertion that you have the right to decide for yourself. It says nothing about what decision you ought to make.

I'll say I don't know other than what I mentioned.

That's right. Do you think I said otherwise?

It's a bias.

Could have fooled me.

I'm not looking to prove anything. I'm just forming my own personal opinion of your character. You're free to form your own opinion of mine.

Form opinions over a stranger's character as ye will, but what are you asking me to do-change my opinions?

What's the intrinsic point you're making?

 

[Suave]

Yes it is. So in the meantime, let's not get our data points from inaccurate sources.

By all means, if you find a better source of timely data than VAERS regarding potential vaccination after-effects, then do please let us know. Thank you.