Quote:
Originally Posted by Medical Lab Guy
The easier vaccines against old known agents are pretty much over with. All the low hanging fruit has been taken. What is left are all old known agents that have either problems with safety or efficacy. Since they are old and problematic one needs to be cautious. I am glad that you are confident but it should be based on studies for which you are still involved with. There are pre-clinical studies and post release studies.
I am biased and come from an empirical science based background with experience in many new things being presented meant to replace old ways of doing things. There is many monetary incentives and scientific incentives in doing so. I have never been naive in simply accepting what manufacturers say. When the newest cell phone comes out nobody, especially not the manufacturer, is going to tell you that the battery blows up. That was found via experience. You need to be skeptical of representations being made about anything new. That is my conclusion based on my experience in evaluating many new testing kits, instruments and equipment used in the medical laboratory and actually comparing each to one another and trying to choose. This RSV is the first. Nothing to compare it to. Look at the diversity of the COVID vaccines.
Again all I am saying is that one needs to be skeptical and cautious when coming to any conclusions in dealing with vaccines that have been problematic for a reason in the past inclusive of the malaria vaccine.
"Mosquirix, the world’s first licensed malaria vaccine, was positively reviewed by the European Medicines Agency, but its use is being limited to pilot implementation, in part to evaluate outstanding safety concerns that emerged from previous clinical trials.
These were a rate of meningitis in those receiving Mosquirix 10 times that of those who did not, increased cerebral malaria cases, and a doubling in the risk of death (from any cause) in girls.
WHO says the study is a “pilot introduction” and not a “research activity” - and that those children living in areas randomised to receive the new vaccine will do so as part of each country’s routine vaccination schedule and that consent is “implied.”
An implied consent process means that recipients of the vaccine are not being informed that they are in a study."
https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom...cal-standards/ |
The covid mRNA vaccines were safety tested by giving them to billions of people. Adverse events were mostly assumed to be coincidental. The AEs that were eventually admitted are assumed to be rare.
The reality is that there has been very little research on covid mRNA vaccine AEs, or post covid vaccine syndrome. One small study was done recently and found out that yes it does occur. Of course they say long vax is rare and covid infection is worse. But they have to say that. They have really no idea, since hardly any research has been done.
There was massive propaganda promoting the covid mRNA vaccines. They denied the technology is new, since mRNA genetic therapy was developed decades ago. But mRNA vaccines were never before used on healthy people.
The mRNA vaccine technology is a great money-maker for the drug industry, and is being called the greatest medical miracle. A Nobel prize went to the scientists who figured out how to genetically engineer the spike protein antigen to make it durable. Which means NO ONE KNOWS how long the mRNA can persist in the body. Nothing prevents it from getting into all organs, including the brain, and staying there indefinitely.
So why aren't more people concerned about this new and unproven vaccine technology? Maybe because the experts who have been concerned all along are labeled quacks and censored.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
