I know that few (I have forgotten her name, mainly influenced by Lanka), think this.
I think this is extremely unlikely and has no pharmacological basis. In fact, most if not all vaccinnees had strong reactions. Almost impossible with the tiny doses of these excipients.
Moreover, you cannot explain all the long-term effe…
I know that few (I have forgotten her name, mainly influenced by Lanka), think this.
I think this is extremely unlikely and has no pharmacological basis. In fact, most if not all vaccinnees had strong reactions. Almost impossible with the tiny doses of these excipients.
Moreover, you cannot explain all the long-term effects of these "vaccines" by these excipients.Think of the long-term effect on birth rates and the excess mortality. Or "long-Covid / post vac" or the increased infection susceptibiltiy. From two isolated tiny doses of the ALCs or the phosphocholin ester???
You would have to rewwrite all pharmacological textboodk.
Please consider this: Isn't it in the best interest of "them" if we argue away from the true problems?
You and me appear to agree that the CDC has not got any prove of the true existence of SC2. But it also appears that already Steve Kirsch is not yet convinced. Not speaking about persons like Fauci, Hotez, Drosten, or Lauterbach.
2. I oversee 4 ½ decades of experience with drugs. Usually they are rather thoroughly characterized preclinically, mainly “in house”, and the companies knew how they could work, namely usually very targeted. As soon as the compound has passed the Phase-3 clinical trial program and got licensed, the marketing people together with academia love inventing many other additional “mechanisms of action” (MOA). These new MOA are usually complete fake, cf. Ioannidis “Why most published research findings are false” and the “publish or perish”.
Hence, the "fully" understand might never occur, but might be very misleading, because based on nonsense and fake.
Not a reasonable argument to wait for.
3. Instead, if there is a potential cure or potential protection for XY, then we really need:
3.1 Reliable data
3.2 Reasonable data
3.3 An overall convincing concept
In case of the modRNA vaccines, neither was fulfilled:
3.1 The companies were allowed to manipulate data and analysis strategies. And they used their “freedom”.
3.2 They hardly ever provided reasonable data. Reasonable data would have been: Can the vaccines prevent disease or symptoms? Such data were covered! Instead we got almost only the prevention of positive RT-PCR-tests as surrogate for efficacy. But is this a vaccine-relevant endpoint? Yes, if you consider all the lockdown and quarantine, i.e. artificial measures. No, if you consider health and risks.
3.3 The concept of modRNA is highly questionable and, at least to me, still unproven. Yes, these jabs prevented the RT-PCR-tests to become positive after 11-12 days. This is certainly an effect, meaning the modRNA must have done something.
But now consider that they administered 10 trillions of modRNA filaments per dose! Really a lot for their story. And really a lot when considering the prolonged half-life of the modRNA, far prolonged (but in fact, still unknown) compared to natural mRNA. However, replacing a natural nucleotide by an artificial one must have negative impact on the reproducibility of the reading at the ribosomes. And you should consider the increased possibility of some breaks into shorter filaments. Both aspects might cause additional risks and cannot provide any benefit.
But not only these MOA issues, not even speaking about the very doubtful stories on “spikeproteins”, the issues with the SC2 itself, or the issues with plasmids and DNA in the jabs.
Please tell me, how it could be ever possible to do reasonable quality assurance in that the said Tozinameran has really and without exception the claimed sequence.
I am convinced that such quality assurance would be impossible at all. And I never heard anybody really contradicting.
No, I did not know.
I know that few (I have forgotten her name, mainly influenced by Lanka), think this.
I think this is extremely unlikely and has no pharmacological basis. In fact, most if not all vaccinnees had strong reactions. Almost impossible with the tiny doses of these excipients.
Moreover, you cannot explain all the long-term effects of these "vaccines" by these excipients.Think of the long-term effect on birth rates and the excess mortality. Or "long-Covid / post vac" or the increased infection susceptibiltiy. From two isolated tiny doses of the ALCs or the phosphocholin ester???
You would have to rewwrite all pharmacological textboodk.
Please consider this: Isn't it in the best interest of "them" if we argue away from the true problems?
I think it matters what's actually going on. If we don't know, we should not intervene until we fully understand.
„until we fully understand“.
I honestly disagree.
1. Who is „we“?
You and me appear to agree that the CDC has not got any prove of the true existence of SC2. But it also appears that already Steve Kirsch is not yet convinced. Not speaking about persons like Fauci, Hotez, Drosten, or Lauterbach.
2. I oversee 4 ½ decades of experience with drugs. Usually they are rather thoroughly characterized preclinically, mainly “in house”, and the companies knew how they could work, namely usually very targeted. As soon as the compound has passed the Phase-3 clinical trial program and got licensed, the marketing people together with academia love inventing many other additional “mechanisms of action” (MOA). These new MOA are usually complete fake, cf. Ioannidis “Why most published research findings are false” and the “publish or perish”.
Hence, the "fully" understand might never occur, but might be very misleading, because based on nonsense and fake.
Not a reasonable argument to wait for.
3. Instead, if there is a potential cure or potential protection for XY, then we really need:
3.1 Reliable data
3.2 Reasonable data
3.3 An overall convincing concept
In case of the modRNA vaccines, neither was fulfilled:
3.1 The companies were allowed to manipulate data and analysis strategies. And they used their “freedom”.
3.2 They hardly ever provided reasonable data. Reasonable data would have been: Can the vaccines prevent disease or symptoms? Such data were covered! Instead we got almost only the prevention of positive RT-PCR-tests as surrogate for efficacy. But is this a vaccine-relevant endpoint? Yes, if you consider all the lockdown and quarantine, i.e. artificial measures. No, if you consider health and risks.
3.3 The concept of modRNA is highly questionable and, at least to me, still unproven. Yes, these jabs prevented the RT-PCR-tests to become positive after 11-12 days. This is certainly an effect, meaning the modRNA must have done something.
But now consider that they administered 10 trillions of modRNA filaments per dose! Really a lot for their story. And really a lot when considering the prolonged half-life of the modRNA, far prolonged (but in fact, still unknown) compared to natural mRNA. However, replacing a natural nucleotide by an artificial one must have negative impact on the reproducibility of the reading at the ribosomes. And you should consider the increased possibility of some breaks into shorter filaments. Both aspects might cause additional risks and cannot provide any benefit.
But not only these MOA issues, not even speaking about the very doubtful stories on “spikeproteins”, the issues with the SC2 itself, or the issues with plasmids and DNA in the jabs.
Please tell me, how it could be ever possible to do reasonable quality assurance in that the said Tozinameran has really and without exception the claimed sequence.
I am convinced that such quality assurance would be impossible at all. And I never heard anybody really contradicting.
Maybe you have an idea for this?