Last edited by TomMcC; 09-28-21 at 20:08.
They allow "DNA vaccines" to be delivered to your blood cells without being destroyed by your body. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_vaccine
I wasn't claiming otherwise.
Those are not the only nano particles. Theres others. In annalysis of vaccinated peoples blood there have been reports of Graphene oxide nano particles also.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite_oxide
https://particleandfibretoxicology.b...989-016-0168-y
Due to their unique physicochemical properties, graphene-family nanomaterials (GFNs) are widely used in many fields, especially in biomedical applications. Currently, many studies have investigated the biocompatibility and toxicity of GFNs in vivo and in intro. Generally, GFNs may exert different degrees of toxicity in animals or cell models by following with different administration routes and penetrating through physiological barriers, subsequently being distributed in tissues or located in cells, eventually being excreted out of the bodies. This review collects studies on the toxic effects of GFNs in several organs and cell models. We also point out that various factors determine the toxicity of GFNs including the lateral size, surface structure, functionalization, charge, impurities, aggregations, and corona effect ect. In addition, several typical mechanisms underlying GFN toxicity have been revealed, for instance, physical destruction, oxidative stress, DNA damage, inflammatory response, apoptosis, autophagy, and necrosis. In these mechanisms, (toll-like receptors-) TLR-, transforming growth factor β- (TGF-β-) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) dependent-pathways are involved in the signalling pathway network, and oxidative stress plays a crucial role in these pathways. In this review, we summarize the available information on regulating factors and the mechanisms of GFNs toxicity, and propose some challenges and suggestions for further investigations of GFNs, with the aim of completing the toxicology mechanisms, and providing suggestions to improve the biological safety of GFNs and facilitate their wide application.
Last edited by ToeCutter; 09-28-21 at 21:01.
You are assuming a lot about someone you don't know. You assume this man is dumb or uneducated or incapable of understanding scientific studies because of his career choice
Meanwhile, we are to assume that you are Einstein because you say so.
Maybe you are, but you come off as a complete schmuck
Soli Deo Gloria
K
I’m not going to go through the OP line by line, it’s way too full of BS that has been thoroughly debunked before and only spread by conspiracy theorists. At the end of the day, monoclonal antibody treatment seems to be very effective if used early enough. It’s very expensive and under EUA so all the anti vax and anti big pharma rhetoric should apply even more to this. However, in the real world, if you get diagnosed with covid you should certainly seek it out ASAP.
The vaccine (I’ll just speak to Pfizer but the others are essentially on the same page) is safe, effective, and has been through all the same steps and trials as any other vaccine. The reason why it was able to be approved so quickly compared to past vaccines is the rate of infection in the general public and the number of participants in the trials was massive. In these trials you need a certain amount of your control group to get sick, with other diseases this could take years. With an incredibly infectious disease running through the world, it doesn’t take very long. So no, no steps were skipped or rushed, they did everything by the book, it’s just a situation where we were able to proceed faster than normal. Boosters are a complicated issue and the data is messy. Currently, with the data we have, I would say it is really only something that an immunocompromised person or old person (65+) should be concerned with.
This doesn’t mean it’s perfect, no vaccines are. With how highly contagious the delta variant is the breakthrough infections have increased and it’s not surprising given the rapid nature of the viral load it produces. Also, when you have a high percentage of the population vaccinated it’s not shocking to see breakthrough infections when the disease is still highly prominent in the community. If you only had a few people vaccinated you wouldn’t have very many breakthroughs. When you have millions upon millions of people vaccinated them 10-20% is a lot of people. However, it’s still doing a tremendous job of limiting severe covid cases and especially cases requiring hospitalization or leading to death. I know it’s taboo to believe the statistics on this but I’ve seen data from hospitals that show an incredibly lopsided view of patients being treated for covid that are not vaccinated. This is not to be confused with a hospitalized patient who also has covid as there is a difference.
As far as other treatments, HCQ was put through the ringer and every well conducted RCT showed it was no better than the placebo. There’s no evidence it’s worth taking full stop. Ivermectin is a bit more complicated mainly due to fraudulent trials that have been retracted but there is also yet to be a well conducted RCT that shows benefit over a placebo. This isn’t big pharma trying to rake in the profits, current treatments are very cheap, off patent drugs already. I won’t say it’s impossible for ivermectin to help but I haven’t seen any evidence to say it does so if I were a betting man I wouldn’t wager much on it. There’s also a very big grifter component to ivermectin. The doctors pushing it via televisit and then using expensive online pharmacies are obviously taking advantage of people believing that it is the drug they don’t want you to know about. There is absolutely profit to be made with ivermectin and it is being made.
As far as supplements, I don’t really put much stock in them. Things like vitamin D haven’t been shown to help even though everyone thinks it has. Low vitamin D levels are highly correlated with sick patients, covid or something else. Studies showing supplementation actually helps with illness is very sparse and the only one I’ve seen with covid only looked at time for a positive patient to show a negative pcr test. Utterly worthless information. Will it hurt to take a multitude of vitamins? Probably not, as long as they aren’t tainted like supplements can be, so knock yourself out if you want but it’s not going to be the determining factor.
So there’s my non-political summary of the research I’ve read and what I’ve read from scientific sources I trust. Don’t believe it if you want, I don’t care either way. I’ve voted Republican my whole life, with the exception of a few libertarians, but am also not blinded by politics and really only care about the science when it comes to infectious disease. Just remember, if someone has the secret that “they” don’t want you to know about it’s probably bullshit and they’re probably selling you something.
Last edited by Life's a Hillary; 09-28-21 at 21:07.
Well, guys, I gotta get up and paint cars in the morning. I'm going to bed.
Yeah because I actually know how complex this stuff is so it’s pretty obvious that someone who is an auto tech isn’t going to know what they don’t even know. Science and medicine is so specialized now that most doctors that aren’t specifically treating covid patients or researching it don’t really even understand everything that’s going on. The difference is, people like me who work in a tangentially related field and have a formal education can read the research, understand where there might be pitfalls to the methodology, and understand the complexities of the statistical analysis. Basically enough to have a BS detector. This stuff is really really complex. Observational epidemiology is insanely hard which is one reason this pandemic has been so difficult to get under control.
Bookmarks