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/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jakezilla

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?

---

Anyone with a computer can get informed, they hardly need to base everything on the word "vaccine" these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FishHog

Anyone with a computer can get informed, they hardly need to base everything on the word "vaccine" these days.

---

Some of the posts I see on here cause me to question that. If you are using google you are not informed, you are being programmed the same way the CBC programs people.

If you want to be informed to you need to seek out and explore the ideas the media and big tech are trying to suppress, compare them to what you are being fed and see what makes sense.

The governments and media have everyone so terrified that they are will to sign or do anything to get back to normal. People hear the word vaccine and assume it is like the vaccines we have all had through out our lives and it is not. They are deceiving the public and using force, by way if the lockdowns, to coerce the public into participating in this worldwide experiment on the human population.

Or you read a whole bunch of stuff. From many sources, including those you wouldn’t necessarily agree with, be sympathetic to.

At the end of the day. Whether from MSM, or alternative source. How would you know it’s trustworthy.

The person writing something from some corner of the web that resonates with you.

Could be a 55 year old pervert posing as a 16 yr old scientist that’s just copying and pasting stuff he or she or they find on Google. If they have just enough passing knowledge..........”How would you know”

People seem to search the web until they find confirmation of their beliefs or wants and stop. It’s actually hard to fight that internal bias

I like to see both extremes. Media being one conspiracy theorists being the other.

Like the majority of things in life the truth and reality is usually somewhere in the middle

Yes the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. I have said that in earlier threads this year.

It's not about a source being trustworthy, it's about looking deeper into what that source says. Once you get about 3 layers deep and critically analyze it you can start to get to something that resembles the truth at that time.

The problem we have now with COVID is that people are not aware of or do not practice this maxim, "Beware belief in undeserving authority". Take a good long look at the man pushing most of this on the world....Fauci.

Do you really think England is listening to Fauci? Germany? India, Spain?......

I have posted this before FYI. A snapshot of the technical bulletin of the Pfizer vaccine.
Shipment to Canada has now been halted due to production delay problems.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pfi...ries-1.5874645

We always read the owners manual, right?

Edit: Vaccine problem reported in Norway with the frail elderly. Is this not the group that is most at risk of getting the covid naturally?

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/corona...ople-1.5268852


REG 174 INFORMATION FOR UK HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS

This medicinal product does not have a UK marketing authorisation but has been given authorisation for temporary supply by the UK Department of Health and Social Care and the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for active immunization to prevent COVID-19 disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus in individuals aged 16 years of age and over.

1. NAME OF THE MEDICINAL PRODUCT
COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 concentrate for solution for injection

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is highly purified single-stranded, 5’-capped messenger RNA (mRNA) produced by cell-free in vitro transcription from the corresponding DNA templates, encoding the viral spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2.

There are no data available on the interchangeability of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other COVID-19 vaccines to complete the vaccination series. Individuals who have received one dose of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should receive a second dose of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 to complete the vaccination series.
Individuals may not be protected until at least 7 days after their second dose of the vaccine

Paediatric population
The safety and efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in children under 16 years of age have not yet been established.

General recommendations
As with all injectable vaccines, appropriate medical treatment and supervision should always be readily available in case of a rare anaphylactic event following the administration of the vaccine.
The administration of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should be postponed in individuals suffering from acute severe febrile illness.
Individuals receiving anticoagulant therapy or those with a bleeding disorder that would contraindicate intramuscular injection, should not be given the vaccine unless the potential benefit clearly outweighs the risk of administration.
Immunocompromised persons, including individuals receiving immunosuppressant therapy, may have a diminished immune response to the vaccine. No data are available about concomitant use of immunosuppressants.
As with any vaccine, vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 may not protect all vaccine recipients.
No data are available on the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in persons that have previously received a full or partial vaccine series with another COVID-19 vaccine.

4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction
No interaction studies have been performed.
Concomitant administration of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 with other vaccines has not been studied (see section 5.1).

4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation
Pregnancy
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.

Breast-feeding
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.

Fertility
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.

6.2 Incompatibilities
In the absence of compatibility studies, this medicinal product must not be mixed with other medicinal products.

I treat the media and any knowledge providers I catch lying, the way you would in a never cry wolf story. The only way to get them to stop is to ignore them.
Kick them to the back of the bus and make them earn their way back.
The ones you haven't caught lying are the ones you trust first, similar to real life with a solid friend. You trust them until they prove otherwise. There's some you just can't ever trust.
So when I look at the source and I see it's been untrustworthy, it simply means I just have to look until I can confirm what parts of their story are true or not.
If I could give an example from an older previous thread where I was questioning why would we be suppressing Therapeutics during a pandemic.
The sources I felt were trustworthy were saying there was some positive reporting on Therapeutics.
It was posted that Ivermectin was widely used in Latin America and should show better results if it's what it's being touted for. I didn't know that so after seeing that and knowing Latin America had a better death rate, I thought they really should have been better then that. That made me question my sources so I looked up Latin America and Ivermectin, the first video that came up was from mnbc and it confirmed what was posted, they talked about a study saying that although they didn't know how much of it was widely used because it was unregulated, there wasn't enough positive data to show any benefits.
Because it was mnbc and knowing I have confirmed they're untrustworthy, I looked further into doctors and scientists discussing Ivermectin in Latin America.
I discovered mnbc didn't mention that the vast majority of ivermectin use in Latin America is a veterinarian dose, it's cheaper and more available, but hasn't been tested or studied on humans, skewing the numbers to allow mnbc to say that.
So I'm left with the untrustworthy mnbc deliberately withholding the veterinarian dose and suppressing it as non effective for covid19. Right back where I started.
I just want the truth.
I can't get an answer to why a vaccine is the be all to end all over all therapeutics everyone can see they're trying to silence.
What's the percentage of lives saved with therapeutics, 5% 10% 20% we don't know, we only know it's close to zero here.
I'm currently waiting on responses from my MP on questions that have been raised here on the forum, it's all I can do.
The knowledge sources that I trust the most don't have access to ask and the sources I trust the least have all the access but refused to ask the pertinent questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onelessarrow

I just want the truth.
I can't get an answer to why a vaccine is the be all to end all over all therapeutics everyone can see they're trying to silence.
What's the percentage of lives saved with therapeutics, 5% 10% 20% we don't know, we only know it's close to zero here.
I'm currently waiting on responses from my MP on questions that have been raised here on the forum, it's all I can do.
The knowledge sources that I trust the most don't have access to ask and the sources I trust the least have all the access but refused to ask the pertinent questions.

---

This drug is used for the more severe cases of covid here in Canada.

Canada
As of 11 April 2020, access in Canada was available only through clinical trials.[36] Health Canada approved requests to treat twelve people with remdesivir under the department's special-access program (SAP).[37] Additional doses of remdesivir are not available through the SAP except for pregnant women or children with confirmed COVID‑19 and severe illness.[36]

On 19 June 2020, Health Canada received an application from Gilead for the use of remdesivir for treating COVID‑19.[36] On 27 July 2020, Health Canada conditionally approved the application.[38][3]

"On 22 September 2020, Minister of Public Services and Procurement Anita Anand announced that Canada had entered into a deal to obtain up to 150,000 vials of remdesivir from Gilead starting in October.[39] As of 8 October, remdesivir was still not widely available in Alberta, because Alberta Health Services was undertaking a "formulary review" to be completed by mid-November."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remdesivir

"Remdesivir was authorized with conditions in Canada on July 27, 2020. It was authorized for the treatment of severe COVID-19 in adults and youth (aged 12 years and over and weighing at least 40 kg) with pneumonia requiring supplemental oxygen. It was the first medication authorized specifically for the treatment of COVID-19, and remains one of the few approved therapies in Canada."


https://www.canada.ca/en/health-cana...ir-update.html

Thanks for that Impact.
I think I remember posting about that drug a while back.