This is not a vaccine

Some information on the mRNA "vaccine"

https://sendfox.com/reclaimyourlives...-in-the-making

Excerpt from the article.

" Let’s make sure we are clear… This is not a vaccine. They are using the term “vaccine” to sneak this thing under public health exemptions. This is not a vaccine."

"This is mRNA packaged in a fat envelope that is delivered to a cell. It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator. It is not a vaccine. Vaccines actually are a legally defined term under public health law; they are a legally defined term under CDC and FDA standards.[1] And the vaccine specifically has to stimulate both the immunity within the person receiving it and it also has to disrupt transmission.

And that is not what this is. They (Moderna and Pfizer) have been abundantly clear in saying that the mRNA strand that is going into the cell is not to stop the transmission, it is a treatment. But if it was discussed as a treatment, it would not get the sympathetic ear of public health authorities because then people would say, “What other treatments are there?”

The use of the term vaccine is unconscionable for both the legal definition and also it is actually the sucker punch to open and free discourse… Moderna was started as a chemotherapy company for cancer, not a vaccine manufacturer for SARSCOV2. If we said we are going to give people prophylactic chemotherapy for the cancer they don’t yet have, we’d be laughed out of the room because it’s a stupid idea. That’s exactly what this is. This is a mechanical device in the form of a very small package of technology that is being inserted into the human system to activate the cell to become a pathogen manufacturing site.

Exactly! It is used to "PRIME" the system but for what?

Many are now reporting getting covid after the first dose. The explanation is that it can take up to 14 days to take effect and you need a second dose.
They are all over the map with their explanations and roll out of a second dose even going so far as distributing expired lots.

Read a lot about the mRNA since last summer. Decided way back then I was not going to take the 'snake oil' from the Political Shysters and I would wait to get, if at all, for a more traditional vaccine when it is developed and approved.

https://i.imgur.com/a4uoQ84h.jpg

Actually an mRNA Vaccine should be more effective.

Take the vaccine and not know the long term affects. Catch corona virus and not know the long term affects, plus chance of dying.

Easy decision to take the vaccine.

Plus a friend in there late 30s is on a ventilator, in an induced Coma from this “flu” right now. Got it from there mother in law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've found the Medcram series on youtube some very good info, simple explanations and no fear mongering or rumour spreading. The one on the RMA vaccines (or whatever you want to call them is here, but much of his stuff is worth a watch.
I look forward to getting mine, but to each his own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jwBxZMWrng&t=1215s

IMO. They can't call it a vaccine because it isn't the standard technique we've used to vaccinate for a hundred years. We typically use either a dead pathogen or a very weakened pathogen. Using mRNA to vaccinate is a relatively new technique so they should likely come up with a new term but they don't want to scare the crap out of people. They reverted to a time tested term, vaccine, to avoid raising the anxiety of the public. IMO.

Wait, so if it is an acute treatment (I assume it is acute, as it will eventually be exhausted from the body?), does that mean once it's worn off, you are at square one and you are just as susceptible to get COVID? Or does the cell pathogen creation continue forever? If that is the case, is it okay that it continues forever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanO

IMO. They can't call it a vaccine because it isn't the standard technique we've used to vaccinate for a hundred years. We typically use either a dead pathogen or a very weakened pathogen. Using mRNA to vaccinate is a relatively new technique so they should likely come up with a new term but they don't want to scare the crap out of people. They reverted to a time tested term, vaccine, to avoid raising the anxiety of the public. IMO.

---

Now we are starting to get into the issue of informed consent. By telling people it's a vaccine when it isn't, can they still say they have adhered to the concept of informed consent under the Nuremburg code?

I wonder why they are not putting a lot more effort into this product. https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com...9-9-effective/