The FDA approved this about two weeks ago.

It is made just like the Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines. Same lipid coating technology and the same concept of an mRNA strand the enters the cells and programs the synthesis of three different influenza antigens which are then expressed on the cell membranes to elicit an immune response.

I find it hard to believe that the FDA acted in the public's interest in light of what we now know about the outcome of the great Covid vaccine push and the aftermath of that governmental effort.

People will argue that mRNA vaccine science has been around for decades. Apparently no one followed up on the aftermath of having a piece of genetic material let loose to enter every cell in the body and generate foreign proteins for the rest of your life.

I encourage you to read and think before getting this jab.

RMD

I'll be skipping this one, too.

quote:

I find it hard to believe that the FDA acted in the public's interest in light of what we now know about the outcome of the great Covid vaccine push and the aftermath of that governmental effort.

People will argue that mRNA vaccine science has been around for decades. Apparently no one followed up on the aftermath of having a piece of genetic material let loose to enter every cell in the body and generate foreign proteins for the rest of your life.

I agree with you.
I'll avoid it, as I avoided the Covid vaccines.
Thanks for posting.

quote:

generate foreign proteins for the rest of your life

Not sure about that one. My understanding is that the synthetic mRNA gets metabolized after only a few days.

^^ Sure it does, that’s what they said last time…Nope!

quote:

People will argue that mRNA vaccine science has been around for decades.

True, but ...

There were no mRNA vaccines successfully approved and brought to market
for humans or domestic animals

prior to the emergency rollout of the Covid versions.

42 U.S. Code § 300aa-22 - Standards of responsibility

No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, ...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22

If pharma can't be held responsible for damages, I'm not interested.

I posted about this on 6/18 on page 1228 of the covid thread. It's bad news!

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...jLWQx40Exyim1nqCo%3D

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
42 U.S. Code § 300aa-22 - Standards of responsibility

No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, ...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22

If pharma can't be held responsible for damages, I'm not interested.

They had to change the definition of "vaccine" in order for the mRNA products to be in that category. mRNA injections are, in fact, gene therapies.

I will never willingly accept an mRNA, DNA, or other genetic product.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
Not sure about that one. My understanding is that the synthetic mRNA gets metabolized after only a few days.

They put some kind of coating on mRNA to make it durable because the raw mRNA does degrade rapidly. Once it enters a cell, it changes the cell's genes forever. That cell will produce the new proteins forever until that cell dies.

One of the big problems is that the injection travels throughout the body. Everywhere. Every organ including the brain and reproductive organs, and the heart. A modified cell appears as a threat to the immune system which then attacks that cell. This is the mechanism behind the heart problems from the C19 jabs. Heart cells were invaded with the mRNA, then the immune system attacked those cells, damaging the heart.

Even if the mRNA degraded rapidly, which it doesn't, damage is not limited to the injection site. They lied and told us it did stay in the muscle, but they knew it didn't. They also lied and said the mRNA degraded rapidly, but they knew it didn't.

How does RNA change the host genes? mRNA stays in the cytoplasm, and has no physical access to the DNA in the nucleus. On a cellular level, it's like an ocean away, on the other side of a one-way double membrane.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
How does RNA change the host genes? mRNA stays in the cytoplasm, and has no physical access to the DNA in the nucleus. On a cellular level, it's like an ocean away, on the other side of a one-way double membrane.

It alters the genetic material in the ribosomes, where proteins are manufactured. I don't think anyone asserts that it alters the nuclear DNA.

There are autopsy reports available that detail the finding of spike proteins 3.5 years post vacination.

Bottom line is we have no idea what will come of the Covid disaster. Perhaps we have just had a brief climpse.

RMD

quote:

I don't think anyone asserts that it alters the nuclear DNA.

Someone mentioned a permanent change in genes, i.e. DNA, which I'm wondering what mechanism could even allow that.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be cautious about this newish (as far as widespread use) technology. Of course we should, but I see what looks like some disinformation being propounded.

I will skip this shot as well

Pfizer and Moderna are both highly suspect vendors of anything good.

Until there is exhaustive study showing this technology is safe, NFW (no way).

Dr. Robert Malone, basically the father of mRNA, is/was the inventor of the nine original mRNA vaccine patents, which were originally filed in 1989 (to include both the concept of mRNA vaccines and the original proof of principle experiments) as well as RNA transfection . He quite publicly campaigned against the use mRNA technology in human vaccines, and the COVID-19 'Vaccine'...AND was subjected to an all out campaign to discredit him by the same media, and deep state 'scientists' the lied through their teeth about EVERYTHING during COVID. Unfortunately, the same people that orchestrated that campaign to discredit Robert Malone (and ANYONE else that questioned the 'science'!), seem to have scrubbed the internet of any evidence/details of his scientifically justified opposition to mRNA in human vaccines.

This has got 'Here we go Again' written all over it! EVERYONE would be well advised to steer clear of ANY mRNA 'Vaccine'.

For the record, I have NEVER gotten a flu shot (vaccine?), and I've have had the flu exactly once during my adult lifetime...And that 25-30 years ago! The only vaccine under consideration by/for me is the Shingles Vaccine, and if they change that one to a mRNA vaccine before I get it, I'll take my chances without it. I don't plan to get a flu shot anytime in the foreseeable future either, but you couldn't force me to get a mRNA 'vaccine' at gunpoint!

Preface: I'm not advocating for or against getting the new mRNA vaccine for the coming flu season.  That's a decision individuals should make in consult with their physician, based on your particular risk group, for this or any vaccine.  But I present a condensed list for mRNA vaccine research and efficacy based on our latest unplanned global trial of it, with actual data.  With the caveat that I gave my residents: peer-reviewed articles are just that - research articles reviewed by scientific peer experts in their field, edited and published after those reviews.  They are not the Ten Commandments handed to you by The Almighty.   They can be flawed.  Peers can be wrong.  Look for sponsorship, critical bias, and frank misrepresentation, using your own critical thinking and background.  But do not reject findings because of your own bias.  "Because I said so" is not validation, even from a premier researcher.  On the other hand, "I don't believe it because my mother told me so" is not validation either.

For example:  the first article in this list is an early hypothesis, not validated by any subsequent clinical evidence or trials.  But it was a good start.  The touted advantage of this particular vaccine, for this flu season, is that may be more effective than the conventional influenza vaccine for the under-65 risk group.  It shares the disadvantages of other mRNA vaccines - it's expensive,  it requires very low temperature storage, it will likely provide a shorter immune period compared to conventional vaccines, and it has known adverse effects of other mRNA vaccines (such as cardiomyopathy).  Non-mRNA vaccines have known adverse effects as well - such as cardiomyopathy - as do most pathogenic viruses themselves, generally much greater than any vaccine. It will not alter the genetic makeup of the nuclei in your cells - that hypothesis in substantial trials being fairly well eliminated, along with its general biologic improbability.  It will dissipate from your cytoplasm quickly, leaving no response other than the desired immune response IF you are among the vast majority of patients who do not experience an adverse reaction, including allergy to vaccine components.  It also does not have any recombinant or adjuvant analogs (high dose vaccine) for the over-65 risk group (of which I am aware currently), at least that has been reliably demonstrated in clinical trials.  So in short, make your own decision, based on your own research for your own risk group, your own health, and your own opinion based on real data for empirical action.  Or not.  Your feelings shouldn't count with regard to your physical health and safety, but from a personal viewpoint they certainly do.  "I won't take it because I don't want to" is as valid as anyone else's opinion, risks accepted, for free-will adults.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9876036/

https://shea-online.org/mounti...cov-2-mrna-vaccines/

https://jamanetwork.com/journa.../fullarticle/2842305

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/...?query=featured_home

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9206826/

https://jamanetwork.com/journa.../fullarticle/2836889

https://www.scientificamerican...-safe-and-effective/

https://www.health.harvard.edu...na-based-flu-vaccine

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
Dr. Robert Malone, basically the father of mRNA, is/was the inventor of the nine original mRNA vaccine patents, which were originally filed in 1989 (to include both the concept of mRNA vaccines and the original proof of principle experiments) as well as RNA transfection . He quite publicly campaigned against the use mRNA technology in human vaccines, and the COVID-19 'Vaccine'...AND was subjected to an all out campaign to discredit him by the same media, and deep state 'scientists' the lied through their teeth about EVERYTHING during COVID. Unfortunately, the same people that orchestrated that campaign to discredit Robert Malone (and ANYONE else that questioned the 'science'!), seem to have scrubbed the internet of any evidence/details of his scientifically justified opposition to mRNA in human vaccines.

This has got 'Here we go Again' written all over it! EVERYONE would be well advised to steer clear of ANY mRNA 'Vaccine'.

For the record, I have NEVER gotten a flu shot (vaccine?), and I've have had the flu exactly once during my adult lifetime...And that 25-30 years ago! The only vaccine under consideration by/for me is the Shingles Vaccine, and if they change that one to a mRNA vaccine before I get it, I'll take my chances without it. I don't plan to get a flu shot anytime in the foreseeable future either, but you couldn't force me to get a mRNA 'vaccine' at gunpoint!

I am in complete agreement.

Oh, hell no.

quote:

Originally posted by Doc H.:
So in short, make your own decision, based on your own research for your own risk group, your own health, and your own opinion based on real data for empirical action.  Or not.  Your feelings shouldn't count with regard to your physical health and safety, but from a personal viewpoint they certainly do.  "I won't take it because I don't want to" is as valid as anyone else's opinion, risks accepted, for free-will adults.

Thanks, Doc.

Let your residents know when Congress repeals the law, referenced above, giving pharma a free pass.