Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Anti-Vaxx 101 Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TheLurch
    replied
    Originally posted by mossrose View Post
    Video in the link.
    Thanks - that's interesting. Wondering if he flubbed his statement, or the FDA simply decided to do something different without telling him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    Could you find me a source for that Fauci quote? Because that's now what the FDA is saying:
    "The clinical study that evaluated the safety of a booster dose of the bivalent vaccine (original and omicron BA.1) included approximately 800 participants 18 years of age and older who had previously received a two dose primary series and one booster dose of the monovalent Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, and then at least 3 months later, received a second booster dose with either the monovalent Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine or Moderna’s investigational bivalent COVID-19 vaccine (original and omicron BA.1). "
    The bivalent vaccine in that clinical study (original and omicron BA.1) is not the bivalent vaccine that was authorized (original and BA.4/BA.5).

    From your source:

    • The authorized bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, or updated boosters, include an mRNA component of the original strain to provide an immune response that is broadly protective against COVID-19 and an mRNA component in common between the omicron variant BA.4 and BA.5 lineages to provide better protection against COVID-19 caused by the omicron variant.

    • For each bivalent COVID-19 vaccine, the FDA based its decision on the totality of available evidence, including extensive safety and effectiveness data for each of the monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, safety and immunogenicity data obtained from a clinical study of a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine that contained mRNA from omicron variant BA.1 lineage that is similar to each of the vaccines being authorized, and nonclinical data obtained using a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine that contained mRNA of the original strain and mRNA in common between the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages of the omicron variant.



    That doesn't mean that there are no clinical trials for the authorized bivalent vaccines; just that they were authorized before the data from those trials was available.


    "In an effort to get ahead of the rapidly-changing coronavirus, the agency approved these bivalent boosters before data from clinical trials in people is available.

    Data from Moderna’s clinical trial of its bivalent BA.4/5 booster is expected in October, and data from Pfizer-BioNTech’s clinical trial of its bivalent BA.4/5 booster later this autumn, reports Reuters."

    source

    Leave a comment:


  • mossrose
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    Could you find me a source for that Fauci quote? Because that's now what the FDA is saying:
    "The clinical study that evaluated the safety of a booster dose of the bivalent vaccine (original and omicron BA.1) included approximately 800 participants 18 years of age and older who had previously received a two dose primary series and one booster dose of the monovalent Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, and then at least 3 months later, received a second booster dose with either the monovalent Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine or Moderna’s investigational bivalent COVID-19 vaccine (original and omicron BA.1). "
    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/360011

    Dr. Fauci: 'Not enough time' to conduct human trials on Omicron vaccine

    New COVID vaccine was only tested for current variants on eight mice.

    Although the FDA has authorized the use of the Pfizer and Moderna "Omicron-specific" vaccines (which include components targeting both the Omicron and the original, Wuhan strain of the virus), there are no human clinical data available to support the vaccines' efficacy or safety, Dr. Anthony Fauci has stated.

    According to Dr. Fauci, there "wasn't enough time" to conduct normal clinical trials, as Omicron is still spreading and taking lives.

    Human data are available for the BA.1 subvariant of SARS-CoV-2. However, for the now-predominant BA.4 and BA.5 variants, only animal data from a small number of mice (eight) are available, and all the mice in the trial, both in the trial and in the control cohort, contracted COVID-19 during the study.

    However, the mice were said to have had an "increased response" to the Omicron variants tested.

    The new bivalent vaccines, like the original vaccines did at first, only have an emergency use authorization, which is given by the FDA in cases where there is an absence of any other effective treatment for a dangerous disease.




    Video in the link.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLurch
    replied
    Originally posted by mossrose View Post

    Thanks. So, safety and efficacy studies were done, just like the ones done for the bivalent "vaccine" that's rolling out now? The one Fauci admitted that no clinical trials were done because the need was there to get it out quickly?
    Could you find me a source for that Fauci quote? Because that's now what the FDA is saying:
    "The clinical study that evaluated the safety of a booster dose of the bivalent vaccine (original and omicron BA.1) included approximately 800 participants 18 years of age and older who had previously received a two dose primary series and one booster dose of the monovalent Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, and then at least 3 months later, received a second booster dose with either the monovalent Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine or Moderna’s investigational bivalent COVID-19 vaccine (original and omicron BA.1). "

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by mossrose View Post
    It was your usage of the word "only" I was trying to highlight.
    I used the word "only" because trace amounts of vaccine mRNA will likely do a lot less than a vaccination dose, and a vaccination dose tends to be much less harmful than being infected with the virus.

    At least we know what strychnine does. Nobody knows what traces of mRNA might do down the road to a very small child.
    Very likely nothing, and what little risk there is can be mediated by the woman avoiding breastfeeding for a few days.

    Leave a comment:


  • mossrose
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    Well, they wen't approved for use without safety and efficacy studies. These track anything bad that happens following vaccinations, including things that are obviously unrelated to the vaccine (one of the early submission for one of the mRNA vaccines included notes about one subject who'd been struck by lightning). Follow up reporting is also tracked, which is how they've identified and evaluated two side effects that are largely specific to some groups, but are so rare they didn't show up in safety testing*. So far, there's been no indication of issues in children. In fact, children seemed to have a lower response to the vaccine in general, and they had to tweak the dosing before they could find an effective one.

    So, in short, good sized safety tests prior to use in the public, and constant tracking of potential issues following use by the public.


    * that's transient myocarditis that primarily effects young males (and does so less frequently than COVID causes myocarditis), and a more serious blood clotting issue that largely affects women.
    Thanks. So, safety and efficacy studies were done, just like the ones done for the bivalent "vaccine" that's rolling out now? The one Fauci admitted that no clinical trials were done because the need was there to get it out quickly?

    Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to explain some stuff to me. I'm gone now.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLurch
    replied
    Originally posted by mossrose View Post
    Thanks. And what studies have been done to show that the mRNA in these "vaccines" will do no harm. To anyone, let alone very young children?

    And, I got bored with this thread a long time ago, and likely won't be posting in it anymore. I only came in to respond to Stoic who couldn't figure out my post all on his own self.
    Well, they wen't approved for use without safety and efficacy studies. These track anything bad that happens following vaccinations, including things that are obviously unrelated to the vaccine (one of the early submission for one of the mRNA vaccines included notes about one subject who'd been struck by lightning). Follow up reporting is also tracked, which is how they've identified and evaluated two side effects that are largely specific to some groups, but are so rare they didn't show up in safety testing*. So far, there's been no indication of issues in children. In fact, children seemed to have a lower response to the vaccine in general, and they had to tweak the dosing before they could find an effective one.

    So, in short, good sized safety tests prior to use in the public, and constant tracking of potential issues following use by the public.


    * that's transient myocarditis that primarily effects young males (and does so less frequently than COVID causes myocarditis), and a more serious blood clotting issue that largely affects women.

    Leave a comment:


  • mossrose
    replied
    Thanks. And what studies have been done to show that the mRNA in these "vaccines" will do no harm. To anyone, let alone very young children?

    And, I got bored with this thread a long time ago, and likely won't be posting in it anymore. I only came in to respond to Stoic who couldn't figure out my post all on his own self.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLurch
    replied
    Originally posted by mossrose View Post

    Just out of curiosity, do you know what mRNA does down the road to a very small child?
    Yes - allows them to live. Every protein in your cells is made from an mRNA. Without proteins being made, humans die.

    Less facetiously, we can stop and consider what we actually know about RNA in the human body, because that's what's relevant.

    We have studied the fate of RNAs inside human cells extensively. There are a variety of reasons for this:
    A large component of the ribosome, which manufactures proteins, is RNA.
    The complexes that splice messenger RNAs to their mature form include multiple RNA components.
    Messenger RNAs encode proteins.
    The inactivation of one X chromosome in XX individuals is mediated in part via an RNA.
    Micro RNAs take part in gene regulatory networks.
    A variety of viruses use RNA as their genetic material.
    Probably other things I'm not thinking of off hand.

    Through these studies, we've developed a detailed understanding of what sequences in RNA are required for translation into proteins; what sequences allow RNAs to interact with other components, what determines how quickly RNAs in a cell get digested and recycled, etc. The mRNA vaccines have sequences that allow them to function as messenger RNAs, which have short half-lives, and are digested and recycled within a couple of days — often far less than that (the average half-life of an mRNA in the cell appears to be about 7 hours). The proteins made from them will elicit an immune response with a long-lasting memory, but the levels seen here are too low to be likely to do that.

    For a non-immune effect "down the road", you have to assume a mechanism for the persistence of the vaccine's RNA long after any other messenger RNA in the cell survives. And you have to assume that it is somehow specific to this vaccine, because otherwise every single RNA virus you're ever exposed to could do something similar, and your cells would be filled with very old, mature messenger RNAs made by the cell, and we know none of that happens.

    There is absolutely no indication of such a mechanism. Can science rule out with 100% certainty that something might exist? No, that's not how science works - it's tentative, and subject to revision based on new evidence. But we've looked long and hard for things like this mechanism for the list of reasons mentioned above, and nothing's ever turned up.

    Leave a comment:


  • mossrose
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    Just out of curiosity, why do you think that?
    Just out of curiosity, do you know what mRNA does down the road to a very small child?

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLurch
    replied
    Originally posted by mossrose View Post
    Nobody knows what traces of mRNA might do down the road to a very small child.
    Just out of curiosity, why do you think that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Roy
    replied
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post
    You obviously aren't following along. I quoted Roy in full context - isolated one comment that he made and responded to it, because it was a dumb comment.
    Bovine faeces.

    You isolated three words from one comment, and responded as if the rest of that comment did not exist.

    Leave a comment:


  • mossrose
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    If you were trying to compare giving people water with traces of strychnine in it for no particular reason to giving people vaccines which might leave a trace of mRNA in their breast milk for a few days in order to help prevent them from becoming seriously ill or dying, I don't really see how that furthers the conversation.
    It was your usage of the word "only" I was trying to highlight.

    At least we know what strychnine does. Nobody knows what traces of mRNA might do down the road to a very small child.

    Sorry you can’t figure that out all by yourself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by mossrose View Post

    I was responding to your post here

    https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...74#post1421474

    Thought I'd quoted it, but didn't, I guess.
    If you were trying to compare giving people water with traces of strychnine in it for no particular reason to giving people vaccines which might leave a trace of mRNA in their breast milk for a few days in order to help prevent them from becoming seriously ill or dying, I don't really see how that furthers the conversation.

    Leave a comment:


  • mossrose
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    Why would we do that?
    I was responding to your post here

    https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...74#post1421474

    Thought I'd quoted it, but didn't, I guess.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
48 responses
135 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
6 responses
47 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Working...
X