On 12/17/2022 3:01 PM, Dylan Distasio wrote:
There are plenty of reputable researchers and MDs who have raised
concerns over the safety of mRNA nanoparticles as a delivery vehicle;
it's not necessary to go to the Epoch times to find these concerns,
and it's not a conspiracy theory.
It is pretty clear at this point that the nanoparticles in many cases
do not stay localized and get into other tissues.
Why would you want the vaccine to stay in your left bicep? Does someone
suppose that a pertussis, or measles or polio vaccine just stayed in one
tissue? And the word "nanoparticle" is misleading. I believe the mRNA
molecules are in a fluid droplet; not some solid particle.
In fact, a tissue distribution study in animals is in the original
application paperwork which shows that the nanoparticle delivery
system goes to nearly every tissue in the body.
Sounds good.
No studies on tissue distribution of the nanoparticles WITH payload,
particularly in humans, was conducted to my knowledge prior to
approval which is a big red flag.
Why would tissue distribution be any different in a human than a rat or
a dog? Has that been shown to be case with other vaccines?
This is from BMJ which you hopefully hold in higher regard than the
Epoch Times:
For COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna), the biodistribution
studies in animals were not conducted. *The surrogate studies with
luciferase and solid-lipid nanoparticles (Pfizer) confirm a
biodistribution to the liver and other body tissues beyond the
administration site [5]. For Moderna, the biodistribution of mRNA-1647
(encoding CMV genes) formulated in a similar lipid nanoparticulate
delivery system confirms a biodistribution beyond the injection site,
in particular, the distribution to the lymph nodes, spleen and the eye
was noted [6].* However, the detailed tissue-specific distribution of
mRNA vaccines encoding SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins (Pfizer or Moderna)
is not fully known that can offer invaluable insights into the
potential safety of these vaccines in peoples with pre-existing
conditions or those on certain medications.
The detailed biodistribution data including pharmacokinetics of
various CoViD vaccines were not conducted by the vaccine manufacturers
because the studies demonstrating biodistribution of antigens were
considered ‘not required' by the regulatory authorities on the premise
that
How do you know that was the premise. Maybe the premise was that the
vaccines would distribute just like historical vaccines.
Brent
vaccines work by an immunological response than the classic
pharmacological approach. *However, such an exemption may barely
justify the conventional vaccines such as those incorporating whole
inactivated virus, split virion, or the sub-unit vaccines, that
directly attracts an immune response post-injection.*
bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n958/rr-1
<http://bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n958/rr-1>
There were also modifications made to the mRNA to make it more stable
which were not tested in humans prior to the initial vaccine trials.
At that point, you have a spike protein (which appears to be toxic in
and of itself to cells) being potentially distributed via mRNA to
multiple tissues where beyond causing havoc from production of the
spike protein directly, you have additional risk of autoimmune
disorders occurring.
Caution in widespread rollout of these vaccines would have been
advisable, particularly when you look at the IFR from Covid-19 in
younger, healthy cohorts. This is not conspiracy theory stuff; there
are a lot of unknowns with this particular tech, and a number of
European countries, particularly Scandinavian ones, (unlike the US
where Big Pharma money talks even more loudly) have become more
conservative with their recommendations on vaccinating / boosting
children.
There was also a concerted effort from government and the press to
block all discussion on these potential risks, and to destroy the
livelihood of anyone who raised them. This is not the way science is
supposed to be conducted.
We were also told in the beginning by US government agencies (it's on
the record if you care to look it up) that these vaccines would do a
very good job of stopping transmission. We all know now that was a
falsehood as they are incredibly leaky.
In aggregate, there are a large number of troubling red flags over how
this rollout was handled by various government agencies. It should
not have been a one size fits all solution based on disparate IFRs in
different cohorts based on age/comorbidities combined with very leaky
vaccines, and there certainly shouldn't have been any mandates.
This is another more recent note published in the BMJ discussing
risk/reward in younger cohorts:
COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: a risk benefit assessment
and ethical analysis of mandate policies at universities
Abstract
In 2022, students at North American universities with third-dose
COVID-19 vaccine mandates risk disenrolment if unvaccinated. To assess
the appropriateness of booster mandates in this age group, we combine
empirical risk-benefit assessment and ethical analysis. To prevent one
COVID-19 hospitalisation over a 6-month period, we estimate that
31 207–42 836 young adults aged 18–29 years must receive a third mRNA
vaccine. *Booster mandates in young adults are expected to cause a net
harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented, we anticipate at least
18.5 serious adverse events from mRNA vaccines, including 1.5–4.6
booster-associated myopericarditis cases in males (typically requiring
hospitalisation). We also anticipate 1430–4626 cases of grade ≥3
reactogenicity interfering with daily activities (although typically
not requiring hospitalisation).* University booster mandates are
unethical because they: (1) are not based on an updated (Omicron era)
stratified risk-benefit assessment for this age group; (2) may result
in a net harm to healthy young adults; (3) are not proportionate:
expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given
modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;
(4) violate the reciprocity principle because serious vaccine-related
harms are not reliably compensated due to gaps in vaccine injury
schemes; and (5) may result in wider social harms. We consider
counterarguments including efforts to increase safety on campus but
find these are fraught with limitations and little scientific support.
Finally, we discuss the policy relevance of our analysis for primary
series COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/12/05/jme-2022-108449
Mandates were unethical in my opinion, and it would appear that at
least some are waking up to this fact 2+ years later. I also think it
is irresponsible to recommend vaccinating children with this tech when
there are a lot of unknowns and the IFR in children for Covid-19 is
miniscule. For the record, I have always been fully supportive of
traditional, well tested vaccines that are also safe and efficacious.
I also went to school for this stuff and although I have long since
stopped doing any benchwork or anything else in the field can
understand basic molecular biology/immunology to have had concerns
early on with widespread rollout of mRNA tech, particularly when it
was being forced on people.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 12:15 PM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you really think these risks haven't been investigated 1000
times and the answers have come back 1000 times that the benefits
of vaccination *VASTLY* outnumber the risks?!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJrqPH9-%3D1SVXEDYnDmTmfGVbK5ze2iM0x4BFuFLu9HOucB%3D%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJrqPH9-%3D1SVXEDYnDmTmfGVbK5ze2iM0x4BFuFLu9HOucB%3D%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b1fd891e-637a-8462-120f-98343a025309%40gmail.com.
