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. 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. 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. 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 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 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.
