Anyone Have An Experience With Covid

Coming back to the comment that covid vaccines aren’t vaccines,

A vaccine is:

a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine)

The mRNA vaccines are not a form of gene therapy which has been promoted on social media.

Gene therapy involves making deliberate changes to a patients DNA in order to cure or alleviate a genetic condition. Gene therapy involves mRNA entering the cell nucleus’s and interacting with the DNA. Gene therapies can have long lasting effects because they permanently change the cell’s DNA and the changes are inherited by the daughter cells which replicate and therefore maintain the changes introduced by gene therapy.

Covid vaccines to do not modify human genes. The mRNA does not enter the cell’s nucleus or interact with DNA at all. The mRNA vaccines can’t alter our genetic makeup. The vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna use mRNA to instruct cells to make a protein from the coronavirus and trigger an immune response.

The mRNA vaccines are viewed as ‘genetic based therapy because they use genetic code from Covid-19.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshua...cines-are-not-gene-therapies/?sh=3121621f229a

Anybody who claims the mRNA vaccines are a form of gene therapy are wrong and repeating misinformation.

Some people are using the fact that the CDC changed their definition of a vaccine to make the ludicrous statement that the change proves they are not vaccines.

What did the CDC previously state? It stated a vaccine is “a product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, thereby protecting against that disease". Now, the CDC is stating a vaccine is "a preparation used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases".

What is ‘immunity’? Immunity can be defined as the body’s ability to defend against infections. It’s a way of protecting the body against an infectious disease. Some people get ‘immunity’ confused with being ‘immune’. If you are ‘immune’ to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.

So previous definition — a vaccine stimulates the immune system to produce immunity which means a vaccine provides protection from a disease. The recent definition states the same thing — a vaccine stimulates the body’s immune response against diseases which is providing immunity.

The majority of people understand that that the CDC changed their definition because the previous definition could be interpreted as vaccines are 100 percent effective which hasn’t been the case for any vaccine. Some viruses are stable like measles, smallpox, and polio which means they don’t mutate over time. When a vaccine is made with an antigen from a stable virus, the vaccinated person’s immune system is primed to recognize and destroy the virus every time it appears. The covid virus is not a ‘stable’ virus because it mutates over time. Covid-19 has already gone through a bunch of strains and is still evolving. As the virus mutates, its efficacy starts to wane and a new vaccine has to be made. What the covid vaccine does is stimulate the immune system to provide protection from getting severe symptoms.

The vaccines teach your immune system to recognize the coronavirus. When you get the vaccine, your immune system makes antibodies that stay in your blood and protect you in case you are infected with the virus. It has been repeatedly shown that vaccines prevent serious illness or death from covid-19.

The change in definition by the CDC in no way suggests that the covid vaccine is not a vaccine.

What do you call something that stimulates your immune system so that it generates a response against SARS-CoV-2 -- you would call it a vaccine.

For anybody claiming that the covid vaccines are not vaccines, provide some reliable information that definitely demonstrates that they do not stimulate a immune response in the body. And then while you are at it, you can contact the John Hopkins University of Medicine (https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/vaccines/vaccines-faq) and explain to them what your credentials actually are and explain to them why covid-19 vaccines aren't actually vaccines. I am sure they will immediately edit their information after you reveal your credentials and sources of knowledge that proves their information is all wrong. Let us know when you accomplished this.

 

Feb 22 (Reuters) - Moderna Inc (MRNA.O) will collaborate with privately-owned Life Edit Therapeutics Inc under an agreement to discover and develop mRNA gene-editing therapies, the companies said on Wednesday.

The tie-up will apply Life Edit's diverse collection of new technology for gene editing with the Moderna mRNA platform that was behind its COVID-19 vaccine.

 

You are incorrect. I know, a journalist snookered you. Let’s look at science…


mRNA vaccines are in fact gene therapy. Here are some examples of the scientific community referring to mRNAtechnology used in the Pfizer andModerna vaccines as gene therapy. Note the scientific definition in bold. Gene therapy does not require alteration of the target DNA. Nor does it require entrance of the therapeutic into the nucleus.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7076378/#!po=4.61165

Another source from science referring to mRNA tech as gene therapy.

https://www.cell.com/molecular-therapy-family/molecular-therapy/comments/S1525-0016(16)30267-2

An analogy may help those interested in fully understanding the subject. Let’s say I buy a Ford sedan. It is an automobile. I buy a medallion and operate the Ford under regulations applicable to cabs/taxis in conjunction with that medallion. Now I call my Ford sedan a cab or a taxi. But it is and always will be an automobile.

Likewise, mRNA tech used in covid vaccines is gene therapy by standard, age old scientific definition. Use of the tech to induce immune response like traditional vaccines (subunit, etc.) and licensing as vaccines does not change the fact they are gene therapies according to long held definitions in biological sciences.

So the claim mRNA vaccines are not gene therapy is as disingenuous as saying gene therapies aren’t or can’t be vaccines when applied to infectious disease. Both claims are anti science and incorrect.

 

Quoting two definitions from the CDC in no way negates the fact that the covid vaccines are vaccines. As I already requested, please provide some research that demonstrates the vaccines produced in relationship to covid-19 do NOT generate a response in the immune system to protect against SARS-CoV-2. Using the semantics of two definitions in no way demonstrates your point. In fact, it is a very poor argument.

What part of mRNA can do different things within the human body are you not understanding?

In the case of the vaccines, mRNA worked by showing the body’s cells a bit of genetic code from the SARS-CoV-2 virus so the body could mount an immune response. The mRNA in the vaccines do not enter cells therefore the vaccines were not a gene therapy. MRNA can be used in gene therapy as I already explained but the mRNA has to enter the cell’s nucleus and become intergrated within the DNA. There is a lot of potential in gene therapies including curing cancer. Just because Moderna is collaborating with a new company related to developing gene-editing therapies does not mean that gene-editing was involved in the mRNA vaccines.

If you go to Moderna — https://www.modernatx.com/en-GB/power-of-mrna/modernas-mrna-platform — you will see a description of the Moderna mRNA platform. The website describes the Moderna mRNA platform => to develop mRNA medicines to treat or help prevent disease. Their platform is to start with identifying a protein that is designed to prevent or treat a certain disease and then they design an mRNA that carries instructions for the proteins.

You have misunderstood what is meant by Moderna’s platform. Basically, Life Edit is saying they have teamed up with Moderna and are going to apply their ‘diverse collection of new technology’ for gene editing with Moderna’s mRNA platform which I have explained above. Moderna’s mRNA platform was also behind the development of the Covid-19 vaccine and now Life Edit is going to use Moderna’s platform to develop new gene therapies using mRNA.

They did not state that the mRNA vaccine used gene therapy. So again, not proof that the mRNA vaccine involved gene therapy.

I hope that you now appreciate that the Moderna mRNA vaccine is not a gene therapy and that it is a vaccine.

 

You can deny all you want, but the evidence is right there in front of your eyes. The quality of your arguments is "no, you're wrong, they didn't say that" when they did, and so did many researchers as I've demonstrated numerous times, as have others above. Your rhetoric is obvious.

 

And that's exactly what happened with the SV40. Only the most zealous pharmaceutical rep or shill would be denying that at this point.

 

It’s unfortunate the public health entities and pharmaceutical companies further degraded their credibility on this issue. If they would just be honest things would be better.

 

In a review published on Dec. 26 in Vaccine, researchers found that non-live vaccines like influenza, COVID-19, hepatitis B, and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTaP) tend to cause adverse nonspecific effects (NSE), increasing a person’s risks of all-cause mortality and the potential risk of infections from diseases they are meant to protect against.

 

They would lose billions that way.

 

Yes.

 

COVID Vaccine Linked to Disturbing Long-term Syndrome

In July of 2021, a condition known as “Long Covid” was officially added as a recognized condition which could qualify as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

And ever since then, whether or not “Long Covid” was a real thing or not, has been debated extensively in the public sphere.

On the one hand, you have the general medical establishment acknowledging that it does exist — whereas, on the other hand, you have people who are incredibly skeptical, saying that long Covid is nothing more than a manifestation of hypochondria.

However, for today’s discussion, let’s set that debate aside, and go along with the medical establishment viewpoint that Long Covid does exist.

According to the CDC, Long Covid arises in people following a Covid-19 infection. And they claim that getting vaccinated is a good method of preventing Long Covid.However, according to a new study just published on the NIH website: being vaccinated with 2 shots of the Covid vaccine, actually dramatically increases a person’s chance of getting Long Covid.



Let’s go through the details together.

 

“Prenatal Exposure to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 Induces Autism-Like Behaviors in Male Neonatal Rats: Insights into WNT and BDNF Signaling Perturbations”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38198049/

I suppose it was only a matter of time before we finally got a study potentially linking autism to the mRNA jabs.

 

The placebo-controlled study was published in Neurochemical Research.


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11064-023-04089-2
The researchers set out to evaluate the effects of COVID vaccination on rats during pregnancy to see the effect on the offspring:

This study aimed to investigate the gene expression of WNT, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels, specific cytokines, m-TOR expression, neuropathology, and autism-related neurobehavioral outcomes in a rat model. Pregnant rats received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine during gestation. Subsequent evaluations on male and female offspring included autism-like behaviors, neuronal counts, and motor performance.

To their dismay, scientists indeed found profound disturbances in the neurodevelopment of pups born to rat mothers vaccinated during gestation:


Compared to the control group of rats injected with harmless saline solution, pups born to COVID-vaccinated mothers displayed a decrease in neuronal counts, a marked reduction in social interaction, and abnormal, repetitive patterns of behavior. Study authors rightfully call that autism-like behaviors.

Researchers used well-accepted tests of rat development to evaluate their sociability and novelty tolerance.


It turns out that male pups affected by the Covid vaccine during gestation were abnormally afraid to socialize and actively avoided novel situations. The authors point out that such maladjustments are “autism-like.” They show the comparison with the control group:


Decreased Neuronal Counts and Cognitive Deficiencies of Male Pups
Sadly, COVID-vaccinated male pups had significantly reduced neuronal counts:


Share

The COVID vaccines decreased neuronal counts by one-third!


The above-mentioned CA3 neurons are responsible for spatial intelligence and general cognition, so they are very important for life success in all mammals, including humans.

As a result of cognitive deficiencies due to a lack of neurons, vaccinated male pups failed to learn as well as their unvaccinated control counterparts, suggesting a learning disability:


An animation of the rotarod rat test is here:



Indeed, male mice born to vaccinated mothers demonstrated impaired abilities:

Specifically, within the group that received the BNT162b2 vaccine during gestation, there was a significant difference between males and females (F = 14.315; p < 0.001), with males exhibiting more pronounced effects as compared to females. Conversely, no such sex difference was evident in the saline control group (F = 0.014; p = 0.907). Additionally, when comparing the BNT162b2 and saline groups within each sex, significant differences were found in males (F = 12.488; p = 0.001) but not in females (F = 0.059; p = 0.810).



A Very Sad Outcome
Please appreciate the plight of the crippled vaccinated male rat pups. They were born with decreased neuronal counts, are fearful of socializing, and are resistant to novel situations. It's a bad combination!

COVID vaccines made them unlikely to grow up into functional adults able to find a mate and establish a happy rodent family:


While I feel sorry for the individual animals affected, I am thankful to the authors who conducted such experiments to highlight the dangers of vaccinating rats with COVID vaccines during pregnancy.

Is it possible that the rat study found a perfect moment in fetal development, a time when giving a COVID vaccine would disrupt fetal brain formation in some subtle ways?

 

The quality of my arguments is that I actually post coherent reasons of why you are posting erroneous things which you have repeatedly been doing. Is posting two similar definitions from the CDC proof that the vaccinations are not vaccinations. No. You haven’t provided anything else. Again, show me research that definitely demonstrates that the covid vaccines don’t fit the definition of a vaccine. Your evidence is not evidence.

You quoted from the Helene Banoun article:

Is this your actual proof that the mRNA vaccines are a form of gene therapy.

From the Abstract:

— vaccines were developed and approved rapidly
— no specific regulations existed at the time they were marketed due the urgency
— now the pandemic emergency has passed, the safety issues associated with the rapid approval should be considered
— Banoun believes the mode of action of the vaccines should classify them as gene therapy products even though they are not considered by regulatory agencies as gene therapy products
— Banoun mentioned some concerns — passage into breast milk, long-term expression, integration into the genome and so forth
— Banoun concluded the abstract with stating further controls should be required for future mRNA vaccines developed outside the context of a pandemic

Do you not understand that this is an opinion piece? Banoun states that there is no ‘scientific justification’ to support the exclusion of vaccine mRNA’s from the strict control rules that should apply for gene products. She’s concerned that there aren’t enough strict safety controls applied to the vaccines. This is not a consensus that mRNA vaccine is a gene therapy. It’s an opinion. You share it with her but are conflating one opinion into absolute truth because it fits your rhetoric.

She asks why the FDA hasn’t ‘really’ evaluated the vaccines unlike the European Medicine Agency (EMA) therefore asking for stricter controls. Note, the EMA does not consider the vaccines to be gene therapy.

So once again, your claim that the mRNA vaccine is a gene therapy falls totally flat just like your statement that covid vaccines aren’t vaccines.

Provide some real actual research — like consensus and research as to why the mRNA vaccines are a gene therapy. You still haven’t shown that the mRNA vaccines aren’t vaccines.

I will continue to respond to misinformation as it arises.

 

Why don’t you stop hijacking this thread which is about people’s experiences with covid-19. Go start a new thread.

I hate to break it to you, these rat pups won’t grow up in any case because once the research was over, they were put to death. They probably disposed of the mother too. A very sad outcome indeed.

 

To analyze their brain and note the degeneration that occurred, which was extensive.

You'd have hoped that the companies that fast tracked their so called vaccine would have done these tests on rats before using the humans as guinea pigs. At least some people had their eyes open.

 

It's pretty clear the author is stating that it is specifically the mode of action that classifies them as GTP's but that regulatory bodies had to ignore and re-classify them to get EUA. Everyone reading that can understand it. I don't know why you're trying to conceal that, or at least your motive. It's bizarre that you would deny what is clearly written and known. Of course, you'll have to ad hom the author to taint the information, but that only works with some people.

 

Spamming this already addressed point. As you were already told, this was a broad vaccination related report that merely analyzed the data and concluded there were significant results that warranted further research.

Spamming this already addressed point(previous response below). "Extensive" you say? The only use of that word in the article is to suggest further study! The researchers use the word "significantly" which denotes a level of data out of range of normal. Your inaccurate exaggeration is noted.

For your future reference: In Research, What Does A "Significant Effect" Mean? | Shanker Institute

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...dly-blood-clots.606446/page-6#post-1074609056
"So, the study to determine the potential effect on babies uses ADULT rats!"

From the paper:
" It's imperative to recognize the limitations of our research, given that it relies on animal models. Caution should be exercised in generalizing these results to humans. Further rigorous clinical studies are required to conform these observations in human populations and to ascertain the exact mechanisms at play."

 

Here you go. The Pfizer documents which they tried to hide for 75 years. 2% fatality documented.

Have fun with it

https://documents.parliament.qld.gov.au/com/CSSC-0A12/PHOLEEPAB2-2469/submissions/00000615.pdf

 

You can "told people" what you want to "told" them. Here's the researchers claim, not yours:

"Molecular techniques were applied to quantify WNT and m-TOR gene expressions, BDNF levels, and specific cytokines in brain tissue samples. The findings were then contextualized within the extant literature to identify potential mechanisms. Our findings reveal that the mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine significantly alters WNT gene expression and BDNF levels in both male and female rats, suggesting a profound impact on key neurodevelopmental pathways. Notably, male rats exhibited pronounced autism-like behaviors, characterized by a marked reduction in social interaction and repetitive patterns of behavior. Furthermore, there was a substantial decrease in neuronal counts in critical brain regions, indicating potential neurodegeneration or altered neurodevelopment. Male rats also demonstrated impaired motor performance, evidenced by reduced coordination and agility. Our research provides insights into the effects of the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine on WNT gene expression, BDNF levels, and certain neurodevelopmental markers in a rat model. "

They conducted this actual research, not "merely analyzed the data"

Yes the researchers noted there was brain damage in the rats. Surely you didn't miss that?

All papers have said disclaimer, no doubt. Of course more research should be done on humans. Why isn't it? What's your best guess as to why they would be scared to do this?

 

The did not conduct ANY research. This is a REVIEW and it states it quite clearly in the abstract:
"In this review, we compiled research reports from the last 40 years, which were found based on the PubMed search for the epidemiological and immunological studies on the non-specific effects (NSEs) of the most common human vaccines."

The report suggested POSSIBLE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE! How come you "trust" these experts but ignore things they say?

False conclusion. The first paper is a review of 40 years of research! The second is an experiment on ADULT RATS! The idea that parents would allow their babies to undergo ANY experimentation is ludicrous. THAT would be my "best guess"!

 

Okay, I’ll have some fun debunking your misinformation, yet again.

If you are trying to claim that within the three months when the data was collected that there were 1223 fatalities caused directly by the vaccine then you are once again posting misinformation and misrepresenting the data.

Where in the Pfizer report does it state that the fatalities were linked to the vaccine? It doesn’t because they aren’t looking for causality and they can’t state any causality. The point of collecting reports of adverse events is to see whether some event is elevated above the background rate which could indicate a possible problem.

Any health problem that occurs after a vaccination is considered an adverse event following the immunization. The adverse event can be a true adverse reaction that is directly related to the vaccine (eg: redness and soreness at the injection site) or a coincidental event that happened following vaccination.

Reports of adverse events’ came from sources that included health officials in several countries, without any verification of the cause of the adverse event, among millions of vaccinated people worldwide. Once reported, whether or not the vaccine has caused an adverse event has to be investigated.

As far as the asinine assertion that Pfizer tried to hide this document for 75 years. Not true.

The PHMPT (Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency) group filed a FOIA request to receive the data collected by Pfizer. The FDA processed their request and asked them what they wanted released first as it would be a long process. The PHMPT sued the FDA to force them to release all 329,000 pages in just 108 days. The lawsuit wasn’t about the release of the Pfizer documents, it was about the speed in which the data was released.

Once Pfizer gave the documents to the FDA, they belonged to the FDA. Pfizer did not ask for their documents to be sealed for 75 years. The time frame of 75 years was ONLY mentioned by the PHMPT and there was no attempt to seal the documents - ever.


In conclusion, the comment about “2% fatality” is an outright fabrication. The two percent represents the number of fatalities reported because the fatalities occurred after immunization. It doesn’t mean the vaccine caused 2% fatality because the cause of the fatalities hadn’t been verified. The comment about Pfizer trying to hide their data is also BS.

 

"Subsequently, on P21, a total of 41 progeny (comprising 10 male and 10 female saline-treated rats; along with 13 male and 8 female rats exposed to the COVID-19 m-RNA Vaccine BNT162b2) were systematically divided and accommodated in cages housing same-sex and same-study group members (Table 1)."

As numbers go, that is a tiny study. These kind of studies need to be replicated numerous times before the data is really significant. As for the brain testing:

"For the histopathological evaluation, from the progeny, a subset of 4 male and 4 female rats from the saline-treated group, along with 4 male and 3 female rats from the COVID-19 m-RNA Vaccine BNT162b2 exposed group, were chosen for these analyses."

Once again it's too small of a group to be even close to conclusive. It just warrants further study.

False. You are attributing "dismay" to scientists carrying out a small study, where no such dismay is suggested!

Their "plight"? Did you read the paper!? They were all euthanized! Your conflating language is noted.

The act of euthanizing them made it "unlikely"!

Yes. That is a possibility. It is why they suggest further research. As a starting point, replicating it with a much larger control group would be the first logical thing to do.

 

I haven't claimed anything. It's not "my misinformation".

The numbers are right their in their own charts

"Cumulative analysis of Post-Athorization >ADVERSE EVENTS<

Adverse event

An adverse event is any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or clinical investigation subject administered a pharmaceutical product and which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment. Wikipedia


Were they car accidents?

Adverse event

An adverse event is any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or clinical investigation subject administered a pharmaceutical product and which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment. Wikipedia

List one investigation.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/healt...d-fda-to-release-covid-19-vaccine-data-pronto

"In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the Food and Drug Administration asked a federal judge for permission to make the public wait until the year 2096 to disclose all of the data it relied upon to license Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine."

It didn't take 75 years to produce the document, it certainly won't take that many years to release it. LOL.

When the fluff is cut away, yes. 2% of the Adverse Events were fatal.

 

The very title:

Pregnant rats received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine during gestation




"This study aimed to investigate the gene expression of WNT, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels, specific cytokines, m-TOR expression, neuropathology, and autism-related neurobehavioral outcomes in a rat model. Pregnant rats received the COVID-19 mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine during gestation."

That's a study, not a review

Covid-19 mRNA BNT162b2 wasn't around in the last 40 years, just the last 3.

This is not a review, it's part of the methods of the study

"As a result of cognitive deficiencies due to a lack of neurons, vaccinated male pups failed to learn as well as their unvaccinated control counterparts, suggesting a learning disability:"

"Compared to the control group of rats injected with harmless saline solution, pups born to COVID-vaccinated mothers displayed a decrease in neuronal counts, a marked reduction in social interaction, and abnormal, repetitive patterns of behavior. Study authors rightfully call that autism-like behaviors."

Also not a review:

"It turns out that male pups affected by the Covid vaccine during gestation were abnormally afraid to socialize and actively avoided novel situations."



The COVID vaccines decreased neuronal counts by one-third!