Suppression of Free Speech on Covid

[metis]

All these people are showing us is that the don't understand the basics of how the human body works.
No wonder they get taken in by these nutso conspiracy theories.

The covid vaccines used a brilliant new methodology that used no organic material. In essence, what they did was to "photograph" the virus dna and then make a copy of it using a cut & paste method. Thus, our body "thinks" it's foreign dna when in actuality it's an artificial replica of one.

 

[Ebionite]

You are not working from a peer-reviewed science paradigm

Because that paradigm is inadequate in addressing the immediate problem of the reporting bias against information which contradicts the "safe and effective" narrative.

 

[Ebionite]

The Surgeon General outlined concerns regarding nucleic acid contaminants in the approved Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. He was particularly concerned about the presence of lipid nanoparticle complexes and Simian Virus 40 (SV40) promoter/enhancer DNA. These lipid nanoparticles are effective in delivering the mRNA of the vaccine into human cells, but they may also deliver contaminant DNA. SV40 promoter/enhancer DNA increases the risk of integration into human cells. This poses a unique and higher risk.

On December 14, 2023, the FDA provided a written response stating that there was no evidence that DNA integration assessments had been conducted on the vaccines.

As a result, Dr Ladapo released the following statement:

“The FDA’s response does not provide data or evidence that the DNA integration assessments they recommended themselves have been performed. Instead, they pointed to genotoxicity studies – which are inadequate assessments for DNA integration risk. In addition, they obfuscated the difference between the SV40 promoter/enhancer and SV40 proteins, two elements that are distinct.

https://www.hmpgloballearningnetwork.com/site/ihe/news/florida-surgeon-general-flags-dna-integration-risks-pfizer-and-moderna-covid-19

 

[SkepticThinker]

The covid vaccines used a brilliant new methodology that used no organic material. In essence, what they did was to "photograph" the virus dna and then make a copy of it using a cut & paste method. Thus, our body "thinks" it's foreign dna when in actuality it's an artificial replica of one.

So cool!

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Surgeon General outlined concerns regarding nucleic acid contaminants in the approved Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. He was particularly concerned about the presence of lipid nanoparticle complexes and Simian Virus 40 (SV40) promoter/enhancer DNA. These lipid nanoparticles are effective in delivering the mRNA of the vaccine into human cells, but they may also deliver contaminant DNA. SV40 promoter/enhancer DNA increases the risk of integration into human cells. This poses a unique and higher risk.

On December 14, 2023, the FDA provided a written response stating that there was no evidence that DNA integration assessments had been conducted on the vaccines.

As a result, Dr Ladapo released the following statement:

“The FDA’s response does not provide data or evidence that the DNA integration assessments they recommended themselves have been performed. Instead, they pointed to genotoxicity studies – which are inadequate assessments for DNA integration risk. In addition, they obfuscated the difference between the SV40 promoter/enhancer and SV40 proteins, two elements that are distinct.

https://www.hmpgloballearningnetwork.com/site/ihe/news/florida-surgeon-general-flags-dna-integration-risks-pfizer-and-moderna-covid-19

Already posted by another poster, just minutes before this:

CLAIM: Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine contains a DNA sequence called Simian Virus 40 that can cause health problems, including cancer.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. No evidence has been found to suggest DNA fragments used in the development of the coronavirus vaccine -- such as a portion of SV40’s DNA sequence -- are causing health problems in people who have received the COVID-19 vaccine... -- No evidence that DNA sequence used in Pfizer shot leads to cancer and other health issues

 

[McBell]

My claim is not wrong. You're making **** up because you can't cope with the facts about potential DNA disruption.

 

[McBell]

Because the definition of a vaccine was changed, and the Pfizer product doesn't fit the original definition.

vaccination (n.)​

1800, used by British physician Edward Jenner (1749-1823) for the technique he publicized of preventing smallpox by injecting people with the similar but much milder cowpox virus (variolae vaccinae), from vaccine (adj.) "pertaining to cows, from cows" (1798), from Latin vaccinus "from cows," from vacca "cow," a word of uncertain origin. A mild case of cowpox rendered one immune thereafter to smallpox. "The use of the term for diseases other than smallpox is due to Pasteur" [OED].​

​

The earlier 18c. method of smallpox protection in England was by a kind of inoculation called variolation (from variola, the medical Latin word for "smallpox"). There are two forms of smallpox: a minor one that killed 2% or less of the people who got it, and a virulent form that had about a 30% mortality rate and typically left survivors with severe scarring and often blinded them. Those who got the minor form were noted to be immune thereafter to the worse. Doctors would deliberately infect healthy young patients with a local dose of the minor smallpox, usually resulting in a mild case of it at worst, to render them immune to the more deadly form. Jenner's method was safer, as it involved no smallpox exposure.​

​

---

​

vaccinate (v.)

​

1803, "to inoculate with a vaccine," originally with cowpox for the purpose of procuring immunity from smallpox, back-formation from vaccination. Related: Vaccinated; vaccinating.​

​

vaccine (n.)

​

"matter used in vaccination," 1846, from French vaccin, noun use of adjective, from Latin vaccina, fem. of vaccinus "pertaining to a cow" (see vaccination). Related: Vaccinal; vaccinic.​

​

vaccination | Etymology of vaccination by etymonline

"pertaining to cows, from cows" (1798), from Latin vaccinus "from cows," from vacca… See origin and meaning of vaccination.

www.etymonline.com

 

[McBell]

Ignoring what I said only shows that you can't cope with the situation.

So what exactly is YOUR excuse for ignoring pretty much everything concerning the thread topic?

I mean, you spent a lot of time whining about your constant misspelling of the names of those you quote, you spend a lot time whining about the definition of words, wait a dog gone minute!

YOU are the one ignoring the vast majority of the posts in this thread!!

 

[Ebionite]

vaccination (n.)

Yes, the CDC changed its definition of vaccine from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease” to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” The public health agency also changed its definition of “vaccination.”

Yes, the CDC changed its definition of vaccine to be ‘more transparent’

A spokesperson for the CDC said the previous definition could be interpreted to mean vaccines are 100% effective. This has never been the case for any vaccine.

www.king5.com

 

[McBell]

I didn't do it for my benefit. The point remains that you can't cope with the primary issue of DNA disruption caused by Pfizer's product.

You, nor any of your sources have shown there is any DNA disruption, let alone what has caused it...

 

[Ebionite]

So what exactly is YOUR excuse for ignoring pretty much everything concerning the thread topic?

I'm not ignoring the primary point that Pfizer's so-called vaccine is neither safe nor effective. The similarity between the fibrous material found by morticians in the blood vessels of deceased people and the the spidron and fibroin DNA signatures in Pfizer's product is evidence that DNA disruption has occurred because of the official covid response.

 

[McBell]

Yes, the CDC changed its definition of vaccine from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease” to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” The public health agency also changed its definition of “vaccination.”

Yes, the CDC changed its definition of vaccine to be ‘more transparent’

A spokesperson for the CDC said the previous definition could be interpreted to mean vaccines are 100% effective. This has never been the case for any vaccine.

www.king5.com

It was already explained to you, though you just ignored it (surprise surprise), that the definition was updated to be more accurate.

 

[McBell]

I'm not ignoring the primary point that the Pfizer's so-called vaccine is neither safe nor effective.

You have not shown that your point is even accurate...
None of your sources have helped you show your point is even accurate.

The similarity between the fibrous material found by morticians in the blood vessels of deceased people and the the spidron and fibroin DNA signatures in Pfizer's product is evidence that DNA disruption has occurred because of the official covid response.

Bold empty claim that no one has been able to actually verify.

 

[Ebionite]

It was already explained to you, though you just ignored it (surprise surprise), that the definition was updated to be more accurate.

It's more accurate because the current definition reflects the safety problem with the current product.

Bold empty claim that no one has been able to actually verify.

You have no interest in verifying it.

Link to info about DNA signatures.

Video about the white fibrous material:

 

[McBell]

You have no interest in verifying it.

It is YOUR nonsense claim.
It is on YOU to verify it.

But seeing as the best you can do is prop up conspiracy theories and just plain liars....

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your interpretation of events is not objective science - you have no testable hypothesis that the so-called vaccines were effective, only a few cases for which no significant conclusions can be inferred.

We have quite a bit of data comparing those who got vaccines with those who didn't.

Interestingly, many people said that they weren't going to be guinea pigs for vaccination, but they didn't escape participating in the trials. They served as the control group and had the poorer outcome. Most Covid deaths following the release of the vaccines were in the control group. I'm guessing that you were in the control group. If so, you did well to be alive today. It's your dead cohorts that convince me that getting vaccinated wasn't just the socially correct thing to do, but also the personally best choice.

The only thing you are doing "constantly" is showing how ineffective you are as an apologist for the pharmaceutical industry.

How effective do you think being an apologist for the conspiracy theorists and pseudoscientists has been for you? You don't seem to be changing any minds.

Pfizer's so-called vaccine is neither safe nor effective

Just Pfizer's? It's definitely effective, and so far, safer than being unvaccinated, which is likely to remain the case, as vaccines are not known to have long-term sequelae. Many viruses, however do. The vaccine reduces the frequency of infections, their duration, the viral load, the chances of long Covid, and the chances of hospitalization and death from Covid.

I hope you've never had and never get a Covid infection if you're unvaccinated. You don't want that bugger to settle into your tissues. You want it met with antibodies when it hits the blood stream before it gets to the heart, lungs, brain, and kidneys, where it causes permanent organ disfunction, and may very well cause another disease down the road.

You probably know that shingles is long VZV (varicella-zoster virus) and that AIDS is long HIV (human immunodeficiency virus), but I don't think most people realize that cervical cancer is long HPV (papillomavirus), Multiple Sclerosis is long EBV (Epstein-Barr Virus), Alzheimer's is long HSV (herpes simple virus), and liver cancer is long HCV (hepatitis C virus). It's obviously best to never get that infection, but if you do, to have antibodies ready to limit it already in the blood stream to prevent or minimize deep-seated tissue infection is desirable.

But hey, at least you won't have a reaction to an injection like I did. I had tenderness at the injection site for about three days after (twice), and my wife saw her lymph nodes swell for a few days in the ipsilateral axilla (the armpit on the same side as where the vaccine was delivered) once. We know two somebodies that had much more severe reactions and were in bed for a couple of weeks, but they're both fine now.

the definition of a vaccine was changed, and the Pfizer product doesn't fit the original definition.

You seem to consider that significant. If you've said why somewhere, I missed it.

Remember, the earliest vaccines were for fairly stable viruses and conferred near-perfect immunity to diseases like smallpox and polio, and excellent immunity to diseases like measles, mumps, and rubella. The mRNA vaccines were in the 90% effective range when released, but that quickly fell into the thirties with the advent of the delta and then the omicron variants. But these vaccines still confer valuable even if incomplete immunity.

 

[Ebionite]

We have quite a bit of data comparing those who got vaccines with those who didn't.

Who is this "we" that you speak of?

 

[Ebionite]

It is YOUR nonsense claim.

Not my problem that you don't have the smarts to associate a novel vascular injury in the form of fibrous material with a DNA signature which associates with fibrous structures.

 

[McBell]

Not my problem that you don't have the smarts to associate a novel vascular injury in the form of fibrous material with a DNA signature which associates with fibrous structures.

Yet you have as yet to present something that is more than bold faced lies, conspiracy theory and wishful thinking in your attempt to support the bold empty claim you have decided to champion.

 

[Ebionite]

Yet you have as yet to present something that is more than bold faced lies, conspiracy theory and wishful thinking in your attempt to support the bold empty claim you have decided to champion.

Obviously you can't deal with the DNA thing. It's none of those.