Truly amazing! Don’t you realize that you are the one shooting yourself in the foot?
In order to reflect on this, let me remind you that my claim was that a concerning problem with the mRNA vaccines is the lack of precise control over the amount of antigen protein eventually produced and the distribution of mRNA or lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) in the body.
And I never denied that claim, I just merely asked you to provide more information about it.
You have not demonstrated that these issues actually present a significant risk to people taking the vaccine, never mind that this hypothetical risk outweighs the well-documented and significant benefits of the vaccine.
That is but one of the wild claims you have made, for which you have failed to provide any evidence. Your seem to have forgotten your original claim, which was that the mRNA vaccine is so dangerous to humans that the US gov’t’s decision to suspend all funding for research and development of this treatment was justified. Can we expect you to provide evidence supporting your assertion any time soon? Or should we just conclude you have no such evidence?
That was indeed a claim you made. Too bad you have made zero attempts of demonstrating it, despite multiple explicit queries for such demonstration.
Another claim you made was that “the presence DNA contamination” is a problem, albeit a “probably manageable” one. You made no attempts to explicate what that even is, let alone how it is a problem. Granted, only the former – i.e. what on earth you are even talking about – was ever actually enquired for, but you chose to not comment on that at all.
There is a misunderstanding here. The HHS’s decision only concerns mRNA vaccine development, not research aimed at enhancing their safety and efficacy.
Meanwhile, here is what happened to a woman and her family because she trusted the advice of RFK Jr.:
A woman in central Florida is suing a dairy after consuming the farm’s milk claiming it made her sick and, ultimately, caused her to miscarry.
That statement is one of the worst-case scenarios that could possibly happen to a farmer. We take pride in what we grow and produce, and the idea that someone would be harmed by our farm products is an absolute nightmare.
But the devil is always in the details. In this case, the woman purchased raw, unpasteurized milk from an organic market. The container wasn’t subtle: labeled in prominent print, “Not for Human Consumption” (as is legally required in the state of Florida). When she asked about the warning, she claims she was told it was merely a “technical requirement to sell ‘farm milk.’ ” Purportedly believing the product was harmless, she gave it to her toddler, who then fell violently ill.
According to the lawsuit, the toddler was hospitalized three times in just over a week — treated for severe gastroenteritis, tested positive for both E. coli and Campylobacter, underwent surgery for a bowel blockage, and was evaluated for hemolytic uremic syndrome. By the second week, the mother herself fell ill. Racked with sepsis, she was rushed into emergency care. Tragically, her 20-week-old fetus did not survive.
There’s no joy in recounting such an awful loss, and I would never minimize this woman — and her family’s — suffering. But there’s plenty of blame to go around. The woman purchased and allowed her toddler to consume raw milk that clearly stated it wasn’t for human consumption, then had the audacity to sue Natures Natural Foods LLC, which was the market that sold her the product, and the farm for her suffering. The market sold the raw milk and told its customers, supposedly saying that the label was nothing more than a technicality. The farm allowed the market to sell its raw milk alongside other human food.
But I daresay the parties were all victims of the raw milk fad popular among crunchy and MAHA folks. That crowd has elevated raw milk as a magical elixir with the power to improve health and combat ailments. It also demonizes pasteurization and downplays its importance in public health. If those voices were quiet, then it’s possible none of this would have happened.
The Raw Milk Hype, a Mom’s Lawsuit, and, Of Course, Florida
Here, again, is the video I posted in the other thread, of the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services cheerfully downing this dangerous product that is labelled “Not for Human Consumption”, and encouraging others to do the same:
Are you serious? Please have a look to post 3419.
Re-read that sentence, and tell me why you think it makes any sense at all.
I guess that is literally true. You did make at attempt. It was a highly unsuccessful one, but it was an attempt.
In post #3419 you link to a paper by Cho et al.. That paper
Now, granted, it is mighty charitable of me to assume that you linking to a paper that has nothing to do with a claim you made later is not an attempt to substantiate said later made claim. I assumed that, if your goal was to actually substantiate a claim you made, you would provide an argument or a resource that actually is even a little bit about it, rather than something that does not. If you are offended by my presuming you to have basic conversational competency, please, do let me know. I am ready to apologize for that error, though shan’t make a promise not to repeat it in future.
In the meantime, since there is no further substance in post #3419, I maintain – yes, quite seriously – that you made no attempt within it to demonstrate that a concerning problem with the mRNA vaccines is the lack of precise control over the amount of antigen protein eventually produced and the distribution of mRNA or lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) in the body.
It’s a joke, isn’t it ?
« Consequently, it is impossible to know what is the dose of Spike proteins synthesized after each vaccination, no more than its pharmacokinetics and biodistribution over time, whereas, for classic vaccines, we know the exact dose of recombinant antigens or of attenuated virus injected, as well as their dissemination and elimination. The changes made are not without consequences on the risk of potentially serious adverse effects »
No, it is not. Glad you feel amused, though. Carry on.
So I am really not understanding what you are trying to argue here.
Are you suggesting that no medical treatment should ever be used until it is completely without any risk, including “risks” that are only theoretical possibilities that have not been demonstrated to actually harm the patient?
Please clarify.
No. My point is that a medical treatment should be used only on people for whom the benefit risk balance is favorable. So when dealing with a patient with an aggressive and mortal cancer, provided you have his informed consent, you may certainly treat him with a drug having significant and dangerous side effects.
To my knowledge, the government hasn’t cut the funding for research aimed at improving the technology, has he?
So when dealing with a virus which has a 2% mortality rate, you can vaccinate everyone if the risks due to vaccination are considerably lower than that.
Obviously.
What makes you think that does not apply to the COVID vaccines?
Well, not exactly. You would also have to factor in the likelihood of contracting the virus in the first place.
Given that, to date, there have been over 700,000,000 confirmed cases worldwide, which is certainly a gross underestimate, I doubt that would sway the risk/benefit ratio in the opposite direction.