re: Free Tickets if Vaccinated at Alex Box Before Any Game this Week

quote:

---

And that's the problem. They've fricked us over, and fricked us over, and fricked us over, and fricked us over. Now they're asking us to trust them. What kind of fricking moron would say, "Yeah, O.K. sounds good."

---

I get that for sure and it’s a reasonable concern. I was hesitant at first but then if you look at the independent studies on the mRNA vaccines (done outside the purview of the government) then you can see that it is safe and effective. It’s why before anything is granted EUA or full approval (which Phizer will receive in June) they are reviewed by an independent panel of scientists (Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee) for efficacy and safety. This group overwhelmingly said it’s safe and since there’s been no deaths attributed to mRNA vaccines and they have 9 months of data (FDA usually only requires 6 months) then it’ll easily receive full approval next month.

I don’t care if you get it or not. I only share this because I had the same concerns you did before getting it and after reading up on it, then I was on board. Also helps that my uncle is a professor of neurobiology who won’t touch anything he deems unsafe and he told me that there was nothing to worry about based on the studies he read and then he shared them with me to read myself. I think everyone should inform themselves before making the decision that’s best for them, whether that be to get it or not to get it.

quote:

---

Correct. I just wonder what other diseases and/or maladies (in addition to cancer) have they created with them?

---

China did a good job creating this one. Damn commis

quote:

---

And it’s people like YOU who make me not want to get the vaccine that much more you sanctimonious libtard. If the vaccines work, why do I have to get it?

---

Just breathtaking stupidity on display in this thread.

quote:

---

When I ask a doctor what's in it, and they can't tell me, that's all I need to know to not want it.

---

I recommend reading this. Probably has more info than your family doctor can provide.

LINK

quote:

---

China did a good job creating this one.

---

I'm not convinced that was the origin. And even if it was, the funding and impetus of it most likely came from several sources around the globe.
Besides that, Fort Detrick is far better at bio weaponry than China.

ETA: My best guess is that it's the same people who crashed the world economy and sought a MAJOR worldwide distraction from it.

That's generally how these things work.

(no message)

This would work if they were winning. Now no one wants go regardless

From your link

quote:

---

mRNA ‘Vaccines’ Fulfill None of the Criteria for a Vaccine

To start, let’s take a look at some basic definitions of words. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a vaccine is:

“A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”

Immunity, in turn, is defined as:

“Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”

That’s the medical definition. The legal definition, in the few cases where it has been detailed, is equally unequivocal:

Iowa code2 — “Vaccine means a specially prepared antigen administered to a person for the purpose of providing immunity.”

Washington state code3,4 — “Vaccine means a preparation of a killed or attenuated living microorganism, or fraction thereof …” The statute also specifies that a vaccine “upon immunization stimulates immunity that protects us against disease”

These definitions, both medical and legal, present problems for mRNA “vaccines,” since:

mRNA injections do not impart immunity. Moderna and Pfizer both admit that their clinical trials aren’t even looking at immunity. As such they do not fulfill the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine.

They do not inhibit transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection. As such they do not fulfill the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine.

---

And this...

quote:

---

Marketing mRNA Therapy as Vaccine Violates Federal Law

Since mRNA “vaccines” do not meet the medical and/or legal definition of a vaccine, referring to them as vaccines, and marketing them as such, is a deceptive practice that violates9 15 U.S. Code Section 41 of the Federal Trade Commission Act,10 the law that governs advertising of medical practices.

The lack of completed human trials also puts these mRNA products at odds with 15 U.S. Code Section 41. Per this law,11,12 it is unlawful to advertise “that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.”

Here’s the problem: The primary end point in the COVID-19 “vaccine” trials is not an actual vaccine trial end point because, again, vaccine trial end points have to do with immunity and transmission reduction. Neither of those was measured.

What’s more, key secondary end points in Moderna’s trial include prevention of severe COVID-19 disease (defined as need for hospitalization) and prevention of infection by SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms.13,14 However, Moderna did not actually measure rate of infection, stating that it was too “impractical” to do so.

That means there’s no evidence of this gene therapy having an impact on infection, for better or worse. And, if you have no evidence, you cannot fulfill the U.S. Code requirement that states you must have “competent and reliable scientific evidence … substantiating that the claims are true.”

Making matters worse, both Pfizer and Moderna are now eliminating their control groups by offering the real vaccine to any and all placebo recipients who want it.15 The studies are supposed to go on for a full two years, but by eliminating the control group, determining effectiveness and risks is going to be near impossible.

---

And also, this...

quote:

---

What Makes COVID Vaccines Gene Therapy?

Alright. Let’s move on to the definition of “gene therapy.” As detailed on MedlinePlus.gov’s “What Is Gene Therapy” page:16

“Gene therapy is an experimental technique that uses genes to treat or prevent disease … Researchers are testing several approaches to gene therapy, including: … Introducing a new gene into the body to help fight a disease …

Although gene therapy is a promising treatment option for a number of diseases (including inherited disorders, some types of cancer, and certain viral infections), the technique remains risky and is still under study to make sure that it will be safe and effective. Gene therapy is currently being tested only for diseases that have no other cures.”

Here, it’s worth noting that there are many different treatments that have been shown to be very effective against COVID-19, so it certainly does not qualify as a disease that has no cure. It makes sense that gene therapy should be restricted to incurable diseases, as this is the only time that taking drastic risks might be warranted. That said, here’s how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration defines gene therapy:17

“Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use. Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat or cure disease. Gene therapies can work by several mechanisms:

• Replacing a disease-causing gene with a healthy copy of the gene

• Inactivating a disease-causing gene that is not functioning properly

• Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease”

November 17, 2020, the American Society of Gene + Cell Therapy (ASGCT) announced “COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates Show Gene Therapy Is a Viable Strategy,” noting that:18

“Two COVID-19 vaccine trials, both of which use messenger RNA (or mRNA) technology to teach the body to fight the virus, have reported efficacy over 90 percent.

These findings, announced by Moderna on Nov. 16 and by Pfizer and its partner BioNTech on Nov. 9 … demonstrate that gene therapy is a viable strategy for developing vaccines to combat COVID-19.

Both vaccine candidates use mRNA to program a person’s cells to produce many copies of a fragment of the virus. The fragment then stimulates the immune system to attack if the real virus tries to invade the body.”

---

Very interesting, and there's a LOT more at the link.

quote:

---

SoloTiger

---

So the guy makes some interesting technicality points, looking at definitions and trying to get super technical with wording, however, he obviously has an agenda and you can tell that based on other articles he has written. I don’t think his paper has been peer reviewed by scientists namely because he’s writing for a business journal rather than an approved scientific journal. He’s approaching this from the standpoint of law rather than science. Additionally, the premise that gene therapy alters one’s dna, which is what turns people off to the phrase is what’s misunderstood. While the messenger RNA the vaccines employ is a type of genetic material, the vaccines differ from what is typically thought of as gene therapy in that they do not change the DNA inside cells.

And the vaccine researchers said from the start that the goal was to prevent serious illness, much like what the flu vaccine does. Most important thing is to keep people out of hospitals and dying. The fact that the mRNA vaccines have stopped people from catching it at large was just a bonus.