We are told that the vaccine ended the smallpox epidemic right? Might want to read this essay and see if that’s true. It seems that history really does like to repeat itself because a lot of what is happening now also happened back then too. Interesting. It’s just one story, but it sure is interesting.
Straight from the CEO's mouth.
Just incredible. We literally have the head of @Bayer discussing how the #covid#vaccine is gene therapy - not only is the video alarming, @twitter proclaims it MISINFORMATION! So we have the very people at the top of these companies and we’re told it’s “fake” #covid19#Ukrainehttps://t.co/Og4maD7UWI
Of course no one would have taken it if it hadn’t been called a vaccine because who would want to take an experimental gene therapy that has no long term studies?
Last October, Oerlich attended the opening of the World Health Summit (WHS) 2021. There he gave a speech from which the quotes circulating on social networks were falsely taken .
Oerlich's words focused on new technologies in the field of medicine and public confidence in these technologies. According to Oelrich, the fact that the world population has embraced mRNA vaccines could open the way to new technologies in the medical field such as cell and gene therapy , technologies that Bayer has studied and promoted against diseases such as anemia or Parkinson's.
The director also made a comparison between mRNA vaccines and gene therapies as an example of technological advances in the field of medicine.
The fact-checking site Open Fact-checking contacted Bayer and requested clarification on Oelrich's speech at the World Health Summit. Bayer's official response was that mRNA technology is not gene therapy .
We are told that the vaccine ended the smallpox epidemic right? Might want to read this essay and see if that’s true. It seems that history really does like to repeat itself because a lot of what is happening now also happened back then too. Interesting. It’s just one story, but it sure is interesting.
Straight from the CEO's mouth.
Just incredible. We literally have the head of @Bayer discussing how the #covid#vaccine is gene therapy - not only is the video alarming, @twitter proclaims it MISINFORMATION! So we have the very people at the top of these companies and we’re told it’s “fake” #covid19#Ukrainehttps://t.co/Og4maD7UWI
Of course no one would have taken it if it hadn’t been called a vaccine because who would want to take an experimental gene therapy that has no long term studies?
up
2 users have voted.
—
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Last October, Oerlich attended the opening of the World Health Summit (WHS) 2021. There he gave a speech from which the quotes circulating on social networks were falsely taken .
Oerlich's words focused on new technologies in the field of medicine and public confidence in these technologies. According to Oelrich, the fact that the world population has embraced mRNA vaccines could open the way to new technologies in the medical field such as cell and gene therapy , technologies that Bayer has studied and promoted against diseases such as anemia or Parkinson's.
The director also made a comparison between mRNA vaccines and gene therapies as an example of technological advances in the field of medicine.
The fact-checking site Open Fact-checking contacted Bayer and requested clarification on Oelrich's speech at the World Health Summit. Bayer's official response was that mRNA technology is not gene therapy .
was a quite convoluted speech fragment, but one thing is certain, he said it was an "example for" (the hoped for revolution in cell and gene therapy) and NOT an "example of" (actual cell and gene therapy) - there is a world of difference there. The rest of that convoluted spiel, I suspect, was pursuant to an attempt to link the allegedly beneficial effects of mRNA vaccines, which Bayer Ag. does not make, to our perceptions of GMO associated poisons like RoundUp(tm), which Bayer Ag does make.
Another thing, fwiw, is that he speaks as and for Bayer Ag., which made none of the products in question. Ignoring the fact that he is an executive and not a technician or scientist, that is like citing some pronouncement by the head of GM regarding some new development by a maker of e-bikes.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
We are told that the vaccine ended the smallpox epidemic right? Might want to read this essay and see if that’s true. It seems that history really does like to repeat itself because a lot of what is happening now also happened back then too. Interesting. It’s just one story, but it sure is interesting.
Straight from the CEO's mouth.
Just incredible. We literally have the head of @Bayer discussing how the #covid#vaccine is gene therapy - not only is the video alarming, @twitter proclaims it MISINFORMATION! So we have the very people at the top of these companies and we’re told it’s “fake” #covid19#Ukrainehttps://t.co/Og4maD7UWI
Of course no one would have taken it if it hadn’t been called a vaccine because who would want to take an experimental gene therapy that has no long term studies?
up
1 user has voted.
—
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
RNA therapeutics are a new class of medications based on ribonucleic acid (RNA). Research has been working on clinical use since the 1990s, with significant success in cancer therapy in the early 2010s.[1] In 2020 and 2021, mRNA vaccines have been developed globally for use in combating the coronavirus disease (COVID-19 pandemic).[2] The Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was the first mRNA vaccine approved by a medicines regulator, followed by the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, and others.
The main types of RNA therapeutics are those based on messenger RNA (mRNA), antisense RNA (asRNA), RNA interference (RNAi), and RNA aptamers. Of the four types, mRNA-based therapy is the only type which is based on triggering synthesis of proteins within cells, making it particularly useful in vaccine development.[3] Antisense RNA is complementary to coding mRNA and is used to trigger mRNA inactivation to prevent the mRNA from being used in protein translation.[4] RNAi-based systems use a similar mechanism, and involve the use of both small interfering RNA (siRNA) and micro RNA (miRNA) to prevent mRNA translation.[5][6] However, RNA aptamers are short, single stranded RNA molecules produced by directed evolution to bind to a variety of biomolecular targets with high affinity thereby affecting their normal in vivo activity.[7][8][9]
RNA is synthesized from template DNA by RNA polymerase with messenger RNA (mRNA) serving as the intermediary biomolecule between DNA expression and protein translation. Because of its unique properties (such as its typically single-stranded nature and its 2' OH group) as well as its ability to adopt many different secondary/tertiary structures, both coding and noncoding RNAs have attracted special attention in medicine. Research has begun to explore RNAs potential to be used for therapeutic benefit, and unique challenges have occurred during drug discovery and implementation of RNA therapeutics.[10]
...
(diagram showing viral vectored vaccine producing spike protein)
... mRNA
Messenger RNA (mRNA) is a single-stranded RNA molecule that is complementary to one of the DNA strands of a gene.[11] An mRNA molecule transfers a portion of the DNA code to other parts of the cell for making proteins.[12] DNA therapeutics needs access to the nucleus to be transcribed into RNA, and its functionality depends on nuclear envelope breakdown during cell division. However, mRNA therapeutics do not need to enter into the nucleus to be functional since it will be translated immediately once it has reached to the cytoplasm.[13] Moreover, unlike plasmids and viral vectors, mRNAs do not integrate into the genome and therefore do not have the risk of insertional mutagenesis,[14] making them suitable for use in cancer vaccines, tumor immunotherapy and infectious disease prevention.[15]
Background
In December, 2020, two mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines were authorised for use in the USA. We aimed to describe US surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive system, and v-safe, a new active system, during the first 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme.
Methods
In this observational study, we analysed data reported to VAERS and v-safe during Dec 14, 2020, to June 14, 2021. VAERS reports were categorised as non-serious, serious, or death. Reporting rates were calculated using numbers of COVID-19 doses administered as the denominator. We analysed v-safe survey reports from days 0–7 after vaccination for reactogenicity, severity (mild, moderate, or severe), and health impacts (ie, unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, or received care from a medical professional).
Findings
During the study period, 298 792 852 doses of mRNA vaccines were administered in the USA. VAERS processed 340 522 reports: 313 499 (92·1%) were non-serious, 22 527 (6·6%) were serious (non-death), and 4496 (1·3%) were deaths. Over half of 7 914 583 v-safe participants self-reported local and systemic reactogenicity, more frequently after dose two (4 068 447 [71·7%] of 5 674 420 participants for local reactogenicity and 4 018 920 [70·8%] for systemic) than after dose one (4 644 989 [68·6%] of 6 775 515 participants for local reactogenicity and 3 573 429 [52·7%] for systemic). Injection-site pain (4 488 402 [66·2%] of 6 775 515 participants after dose one and 3 890 848 [68·6%] of 5 674 420 participants after dose two), fatigue (2 295 205 [33·9%] participants after dose one and 3 158 299 participants [55·7%] after dose two), and headache (1 831 471 [27·0%] participants after dose one and 2 623 721 [46·2%] participants after dose two) were commonly reported during days 0–7 following vaccination. Reactogenicity was reported most frequently the day after vaccination; most reactions were mild. More reports of being unable to work, do normal activities, or of seeking medical care occurred after dose two (1 821 421 [32·1%]) than after dose one (808 963 [11·9%]); less than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after vaccination (56 647 [0·8%] after dose one and 53 077 [0·9%] after dose two).
Interpretation
Safety data from more than 298 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered in the first 6 months of the US vaccination programme show that most reported adverse events were mild and short in duration.
Let the wild rumpus begin!
up
2 users have voted.
—
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
John joined The Lancet in 1990, working as a peer-review editor before becoming the first editor of the journal's website in 1996 and the Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet Infectious Diseases, which published its first issue in August 2001. John was instrumental in advancing the Lancet journals' coverage of global disease outbreaks such as the 2009 influenza pandemic, SARS, Ebola, and the COVID-19 pandemic. John was a mentor to many staff at The Lancet and would always spare his time to share his vast knowledge and expertise with his colleagues.
In addition, he was a member of the organising committees for among others, conferences on influenza in Singapore and Beijing, mass gatherings medicine in Jeddah, HIV in San Francisco, and he chaired the organising committee of the 2016 Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh Infectious Diseases Symposium. In 2011, he was awarded Fellowship of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.
John has authored research papers, editorials and commentaries, and delivered lectures on academic publishing and infection-related topics.
An important limitation of this report is one shared by all VAERS analyses: we used data from a passive reporting system subject to underreporting and variable or incomplete reporting.8
Although VAERS death reports were individually reviewed by CDC physicians and follow-up is ongoing to obtain additional and missing records, other reports of serious adverse events were not individually reviewed. Additionally, VAERS reports require interpretation to identify whether reports meet clinical case definitions.48
A limitation of v-safe is the need for smartphone access. Because a subset of all vaccine recipients participated in v-safe, the results are unlikely to be generalisable to the entire vaccinated US population. Other differences might exist among participants who received mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 vaccines that were unaccounted for; therefore, v-safe cannot be used to draw conclusions that one mRNA vaccine type is more reactogenic than the other. Additionally, participants in v-safe might be lost to follow-up because continuous enrolment is not required. Finally, this report only included v-safe responses received during the first week after vaccination.
data regarding the safety of the Covid 19 vaccines...
Background
In December, 2020, two mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines were authorised for use in the USA. We aimed to describe US surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive system, and v-safe, a new active system, during the first 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme.
Methods
In this observational study, we analysed data reported to VAERS and v-safe during Dec 14, 2020, to June 14, 2021. VAERS reports were categorised as non-serious, serious, or death. Reporting rates were calculated using numbers of COVID-19 doses administered as the denominator. We analysed v-safe survey reports from days 0–7 after vaccination for reactogenicity, severity (mild, moderate, or severe), and health impacts (ie, unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, or received care from a medical professional).
Findings
During the study period, 298 792 852 doses of mRNA vaccines were administered in the USA. VAERS processed 340 522 reports: 313 499 (92·1%) were non-serious, 22 527 (6·6%) were serious (non-death), and 4496 (1·3%) were deaths. Over half of 7 914 583 v-safe participants self-reported local and systemic reactogenicity, more frequently after dose two (4 068 447 [71·7%] of 5 674 420 participants for local reactogenicity and 4 018 920 [70·8%] for systemic) than after dose one (4 644 989 [68·6%] of 6 775 515 participants for local reactogenicity and 3 573 429 [52·7%] for systemic). Injection-site pain (4 488 402 [66·2%] of 6 775 515 participants after dose one and 3 890 848 [68·6%] of 5 674 420 participants after dose two), fatigue (2 295 205 [33·9%] participants after dose one and 3 158 299 participants [55·7%] after dose two), and headache (1 831 471 [27·0%] participants after dose one and 2 623 721 [46·2%] participants after dose two) were commonly reported during days 0–7 following vaccination. Reactogenicity was reported most frequently the day after vaccination; most reactions were mild. More reports of being unable to work, do normal activities, or of seeking medical care occurred after dose two (1 821 421 [32·1%]) than after dose one (808 963 [11·9%]); less than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after vaccination (56 647 [0·8%] after dose one and 53 077 [0·9%] after dose two).
Interpretation
Safety data from more than 298 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered in the first 6 months of the US vaccination programme show that most reported adverse events were mild and short in duration.
Let the wild rumpus begin!
up
6 users have voted.
—
Still yourself, deep water can absorb many disturbances with minimal reaction.
--When the opening appears release yourself.
Comments
Let’s talk smallpox
We are told that the vaccine ended the smallpox epidemic right? Might want to read this essay and see if that’s true. It seems that history really does like to repeat itself because a lot of what is happening now also happened back then too. Interesting. It’s just one story, but it sure is interesting.
Straight from the CEO's mouth.
Of course no one would have taken it if it hadn’t been called a vaccine because who would want to take an experimental gene therapy that has no long term studies?
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Ummm....no.
Last October, Oerlich attended the opening of the World Health Summit (WHS) 2021. There he gave a speech from which the quotes circulating on social networks were falsely taken .
Oerlich's words focused on new technologies in the field of medicine and public confidence in these technologies. According to Oelrich, the fact that the world population has embraced mRNA vaccines could open the way to new technologies in the medical field such as cell and gene therapy , technologies that Bayer has studied and promoted against diseases such as anemia or Parkinson's.
The director also made a comparison between mRNA vaccines and gene therapies as an example of technological advances in the field of medicine.
The fact-checking site Open Fact-checking contacted Bayer and requested clarification on Oelrich's speech at the World Health Summit. Bayer's official response was that mRNA technology is not gene therapy .
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
So you just ignore what he said?
How does that work?
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
The question is, what exactly did he say? That
was a quite convoluted speech fragment, but one thing is certain, he said it was an "example for" (the hoped for revolution in cell and gene therapy) and NOT an "example of" (actual cell and gene therapy) - there is a world of difference there. The rest of that convoluted spiel, I suspect, was pursuant to an attempt to link the allegedly beneficial effects of mRNA vaccines, which Bayer Ag. does not make, to our perceptions of GMO associated poisons like RoundUp(tm), which Bayer Ag does make.
Another thing, fwiw, is that he speaks as and for Bayer Ag., which made none of the products in question. Ignoring the fact that he is an executive and not a technician or scientist, that is like citing some pronouncement by the head of GM regarding some new development by a maker of e-bikes.
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
And...
https://www.breakinglatest.news/health/mrna-vaccines-are-gene-therapies-...
This rumor started last fall.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
RNA therapeutics
The Lancet has released a report based upon the VAERS
data regarding the safety of the Covid 19 vaccines...
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00054-8/fulltext
Background
In December, 2020, two mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines were authorised for use in the USA. We aimed to describe US surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive system, and v-safe, a new active system, during the first 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme.
Methods
In this observational study, we analysed data reported to VAERS and v-safe during Dec 14, 2020, to June 14, 2021. VAERS reports were categorised as non-serious, serious, or death. Reporting rates were calculated using numbers of COVID-19 doses administered as the denominator. We analysed v-safe survey reports from days 0–7 after vaccination for reactogenicity, severity (mild, moderate, or severe), and health impacts (ie, unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, or received care from a medical professional).
Findings
During the study period, 298 792 852 doses of mRNA vaccines were administered in the USA. VAERS processed 340 522 reports: 313 499 (92·1%) were non-serious, 22 527 (6·6%) were serious (non-death), and 4496 (1·3%) were deaths. Over half of 7 914 583 v-safe participants self-reported local and systemic reactogenicity, more frequently after dose two (4 068 447 [71·7%] of 5 674 420 participants for local reactogenicity and 4 018 920 [70·8%] for systemic) than after dose one (4 644 989 [68·6%] of 6 775 515 participants for local reactogenicity and 3 573 429 [52·7%] for systemic). Injection-site pain (4 488 402 [66·2%] of 6 775 515 participants after dose one and 3 890 848 [68·6%] of 5 674 420 participants after dose two), fatigue (2 295 205 [33·9%] participants after dose one and 3 158 299 participants [55·7%] after dose two), and headache (1 831 471 [27·0%] participants after dose one and 2 623 721 [46·2%] participants after dose two) were commonly reported during days 0–7 following vaccination. Reactogenicity was reported most frequently the day after vaccination; most reactions were mild. More reports of being unable to work, do normal activities, or of seeking medical care occurred after dose two (1 821 421 [32·1%]) than after dose one (808 963 [11·9%]); less than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after vaccination (56 647 [0·8%] after dose one and 53 077 [0·9%] after dose two).
Interpretation
Safety data from more than 298 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered in the first 6 months of the US vaccination programme show that most reported adverse events were mild and short in duration.
Let the wild rumpus begin!
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Updated link and sad news from The Lancet
John McConnell, the founding Editor-in-Chief of Lancet Infectious Diseases unexpectedly died on February 24, 2022.
In memoriam
Too busy of a day will read in full this evening or tomorrow.
Safety of mRNA vaccines administered during the initial 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme: an observational study of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and v-safe
Still yourself, deep water can absorb many disturbances with minimal reaction.
--When the opening appears release yourself.
I know this is old
but it speaks to vaccine safety. Once again, Chris Martenson on data about vax injuries.
not 100% safe period
Understanding the lies that led to pharma bonanzas is not too difficult
to comprehend, at least for those willing to examine the data.
Dilyana taking classified bio-lab evidence to
...EU Parliament