Message from @Wretch
Discord ID: 613889891595583488
2
3 Eradication of smallpox
Please wait to comment on these pieces for like 15 minutes as i collect info
1 no because not giving people vaccines when they are told that we are giving them vaccines for somewhat serious diseases is unethical. Though i suppose it could be done on monkeys possibly
I think I used to have disease and vaccine statistics on here but I don’t know if I have them still. I can’t even post them if I had them either way
4. This is somewhat of a problem and it is being pushed for but we do have some tests we do before we push it through to humans; its required to be tested on animals
Ive got a link if you want to see
Its still not significant enough for everything to be determined but it weeds the very large problems out.
5. As of now, the specific neurotoxin is unspecified so the question has no meaning. Though if you find what neurotoxin you are talking about glad to go through it
6. Same as 5
7 if its a live virus it can go in through the nose but if isnt then it has to be taken into the blood stream. In reality theres no difference really to the future immune response particular to the site injection
8. They can freeze and basically inactivate viruses until the production must start. After that the mutation process can happen. Usually this mutation wont significantly affect the reciever though. If its not a live virus though it cant mutate so that problem can be solved depending on the needed immunity to the virus.
9 alot of that is missing needed citation some of it on a logical scale of effectiveness simply doesnt match up. But to answer your actual question posted, Some antigens are somewhat or fully effective on other viruses because the MHC proteins are very similar or actually are the same. We think of viruses as fast mutating and in reality some of them are, but many of them dont mutate that fast. Also flu vaccines are known to be usually ineffective because they have to try and guess how the virus will mutate which is impossible to get right all the time
also number 2 we have got proof that more have died from the measles vaccine that the disease its self
eradication of small pox may have zero to do with the vaccine seeing as how it was already in decline before it was introduced
4. Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined
or analyzed in any vaccine study? show me studies showing it is safe for humans
Aluminium is neurotoxic. Its free ion, Al(3+) (aq), is highly biologically reactive and uniquely equipped to do damage to essential cellular (neuronal) biochemistry. This unequivocal fact must be the starting point in examining the risk posed by aluminium as a neurotoxin in humans. Aluminium is present in the human brain and it accumulates with age.
Thimerosal is another neurotoxin
that is number 5
get back to me when you can prove aluminum is ok for the human body
this also crushes your argument on number 6
also proved my point with number 7 ty
and no your not going to stop it from mutating in the wild after they put it in someone and they spread it therefore those that get the mutated version will not be protected will they !!!!1
where is your scientific proof of what you CLAIM for number 9. this is the point of number 9 it can not affect something it is not targeted to affect
@the21cat where is the scientific study i can examine to see if they are telling the truth and could test what they claim from webmd hmmmm
just cause they claim there is a 12 year study dont mean there was
no proof of the claim then i can dismiss it without proof
even though i got proof
all i can see is something saying they did the study but no link to the actual study
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Drs Klein, Naleway, and Baxter have received research support from Merck and GlaxoSmithKline.
lol receives funding from big pharma/vaccine companies and we are supposed to trust their information and so called research??????
Scientists are human. Scientists have a vested interest in promoting their work, often for status and further research funding, although sometimes for direct financial gain. This can lead to selective reporting of results and occasionally, exaggeration. Peer review is not infallible: journal editors might favour positive findings and newsworthiness. Multiple, independent sources of evidence and replication are much more convincing.
sounds to me like they are getting paid to lie