US FDA approves first mRNA flu shot from Moderna

The influenza mRNA vaccine will have different side effects from the Covid shot since there is no spike protein involved. Your body will make different antigens and I think they are listing it as polyvalent instead of monovalent as the Covid shot was. That, in part, is why you have to get so many "boosters". They were/are separate mRNA signatures. Perhaps the Mayo article stating that it doesn't change your DNA was referring to the DNA transfer for reproduction. That, although very, very unlikely to occur may still be possible considering how many individuals to whom it was given and how many injections each person got. It would be NEARLY impossible however. I am sure no testing was ever done on that point, so, just like they "knew" that the mRNA would be anchored at the injection site (although large-scale testing was never done to prove that point, at least ;on the scale the shots were given) that was later found not to be the case is very active individuals.

If you watched the analysis of the paper used to allow the release of the flu mRNA shot, there is a large increase in side effects for a relatively small increase in effectiveness.
 
Hoot Crawford said:
Thanks for sharing your opinion, but I'll stick with those folks "from the famous Mayo Clinic", who have a track record of excellence that goes back decades.
Click to expand...
Everything I post is only my opinion and you are certainly free to disagree, but I do have some background in this stuff and the Faucis of the world are counting on those who "trust the authorities".
 
Don Alaska said:
Everything I post is only my opinion and you are certainly free to disagree, but I do have some background in this stuff and the Faucis of the world are counting on those who "trust the authorities".
Click to expand...
Thanks again, but my link was to an article by Mayo Clinic, not something about Fauci. But unless you are re-performing all the lab tests in your basement, combing thru all the data at a granular level to look for causal relationships instead of just correlation, and are hands on treating patients, we are both trusting an authority, just different ones. Who are you trusting?
 
Don Alaska said:
The influenza mRNA vaccine will have different side effects from the Covid shot since there is no spike protein involved. Your body will make different antigens and I think they are listing it as polyvalent instead of monovalent as the Covid shot was. That, in part, is why you have to get so many "boosters". They were/are separate mRNA signatures. Perhaps the Mayo article stating that it doesn't change your DNA was referring to the DNA transfer for reproduction. That, although very, very unlikely to occur may still be possible considering how many individuals to whom it was given and how many injections each person got. It would be NEARLY impossible however. I am sure no testing was ever done on that point, so, just like they "knew" that the mRNA would be anchored at the injection site (although large-scale testing was never done to prove that point, at least ;on the scale the shots were given) that was later found not to be the case is very active individuals.

If you watched the analysis of the paper used to allow the release of the flu mRNA shot, there is a large increase in side effects for a relatively small increase in effectiveness.
Click to expand...
My brother always said, Never buy a new car in the first couple of years of its coming out. The bugs will make themselves known.
Kinda the same thing.
 
Mary Stetler said:
Chiro sessions include 45 minutes of assessment and treatment but also conversation. I have been going to her and her previous boss for 20 years off and on. She has taken care of the family. Conversation happens and she wants to keep it friendly.
Click to expand...
I have conversations with my PCP but we have never touched on politics. I think she would steer that conversation away since she just got my blood pressure under control. :D We mostly talk about gardening and RVing.
 
Hoot Crawford said:
Thanks again, but my link was to an article by Mayo Clinic, not something about Fauci. But unless you are re-performing all the lab tests in your basement, combing thru all the data at a granular level to look for causal relationships instead of just correlation, and are hands on treating patients, we are both trusting an authority, just different ones. Who are you trusting?
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be lab tests, it would be medical autopsies. Even Mayo doesn't have those available since they are seldom done any more since no one wants to pay for them and the doctors don't want them done since if mistakes are found the lawyers will tear them to pieces.
 
Don Alaska said:
It wouldn't be lab tests, it would be medical autopsies. Even Mayo doesn't have those available since they are seldom done any more since no one wants to pay for them and the doctors don't want them done since if mistakes are found the lawyers will tear them to pieces.
Click to expand...
okay. but doesn't answer my question - who is the authority that you trust? You've made it clear you don't trust Mayo Clinic, for example, so who is it?
 
Hoot Crawford said:
So, were you one of the attending physicians, in the room with them, treating them, and watching them die?
Click to expand...
Definitely not! Therefore I can be trusted, and they can't be trusted at all. After all, they were the ones
"treating" your relatives, right there watching & licking their chops as they died, & looking forward to those
$52,000 bonuses for listing their causes of death as being "from a virus." And no family members were allowed.

Note that even with the recent covid fiasco, there has still been no proof of a virus existing, and therefore
still no valid test for a virus. Obviously there can't be a valid test for something that's never been proven to exist.

What should have been done was to have no restrictions, so those coming into contact with all of the healthy
people like me, who've never been sick from a virus, would then pass on our fantastic immunity to everyone else.
Sadly that wasn't done, but hopefully enough people have learned, so that the next time there won't be any restrictions.
 
Last edited:
Hoot Crawford said:
okay. but doesn't answer my question - who is the authority that you trust? You've made it clear you don't trust Mayo Clinic, for example, so who is it?
Click to expand...
I don't trust any real single authority, but I have enough knowledge on this subject tobe in that position. I understand that many are not in that position, so I suggest you review several authoritative sources and form your own opinion. Don't rely on any single source. As has now been shown in the Fauci hearing and subsequent release of information, much of what he was publicly pronouncing he didn't believe in private. The latest release concerned the safety of the vaccine in pregnant women. Fauci publicly advocated for that while privately mentioning that it was very dangerous. The Mayo Clinic changed, especially after Obamacare was passed. One spokesperson for the clinic said they would probably have to close if the law was passed. They did not close, but they had to altern the way they operated. I don't know if that affected how the patients were treated, but I have received reports that they are not treated in the same manner as before as much of that was prohibited by the Federal law. I just think that the emesage you cited was probably written by a public affairs person, not a medical scientist becaue of the wording.

My way of thinking needn't affect yours. You are certainly free to do and think as you wish. That is what freedom of speech and opinion means.
 
Hoot Crawford said:
you are a sick, sick man in the most obvious way. shame on you
Click to expand...
John Walker said:
Definitely not! Therefore I can be trusted, and they can't be trusted at all. After all, they were the ones
"treating" your relatives, right there watching & licking their chops as they died, & looking forward to those
$52,000 bonuses for listing their causes of death as being "from a virus." And no family members were allowed.

Note that even with the recent covid fiasco, there has still been no proof of a virus existing, and therefore
still no valid test for a virus. Obviously there can't be a valid test for something that's never been proven to exist.

What should have been done was to have no restrictions, so those coming into contact with all of the healthy
people like me, who've never been sick from a virus, would then pass on our fantastic immunity to everyone else.
Sadly that wasn't done, but hopefully enough people have learned, so that the next time there won't be any restrictions.
Click to expand...
Oh, there has been a test for the virus since the genome was smuggled out of China, but the CDC deliberately chose to make it unreliable. If there were not virus, the millions who died would not have died from it. I understand the figures in the U.S. were skewed due to both the tainted tsts and the rewards offered to practitioners and clinics regarding the number of Covid cases. As some have said here and elsewhere, dying WITH Covid and dying FROM Covid are not the same thing. There is a contradiction that I just don't understand regarding Covid however. It is usually claimed that those who died from Covid succumbed to a cytokine storm, but cytokine storms occur in those with the strongest immune systems, usually the young and women such as occurred during the 1918 Spanish Influenza. That was not true of Covid, that seemed to be most serious in the infirm and elderly. It may have been part of the design of the virus; I just don't know. I have not read data that explained this to me although it may exist. I had a co-worker at one time whose master's thesis was on Cytokine Storm and the effect on the pulmonary system, which seems to be what happened during Covid. I wish I could talk with her to see if she could explain this to me, but alas she has moved to greener pastures and I have no idea where she is now.
 
Don Alaska said:
I don't trust any real single authority, but I have enough knowledge on this subject tobe in that position. I understand that many are not in that position, so I suggest you review several authoritative sources and form your own opinion. Don't rely on any single source. As has now been shown in the Fauci hearing and subsequent release of information, much of what he was publicly pronouncing he didn't believe in private. The latest release concerned the safety of the vaccine in pregnant women. Fauci publicly advocated for that while privately mentioning that it was very dangerous. The Mayo Clinic changed, especially after Obamacare was passed. One spokesperson for the clinic said they would probably have to close if the law was passed. They did not close, but they had to altern the way they operated. I don't know if that affected how the patients were treated, but I have received reports that they are not treated in the same manner as before as much of that was prohibited by the Federal law. I just think that the emesage you cited was probably written by a public affairs person, not a medical scientist becaue of the wording.

My way of thinking needn't affect yours. You are certainly free to do and think as you wish. That is what freedom of speech and opinion means.
Click to expand...
Okay, your deflection is your answer, which is telling. Thanks for playing.
 
Hoot Crawford said:
okay. but doesn't answer my question - who is the authority that you trust? You've made it clear you don't trust Mayo Clinic, for example, so who is it?
Click to expand...
Intelligent people trust their ability to use logic when making health decisions.
Intelligent people don't automatically trust those who profit from sales of vaccines or drugs.
Intelligent people don't trust those who have exaggerated & lied to us in the past to create fear (as mentioned in post #3)
Intelligent people think for themselves.

Just curious - are you a retired or current health care worker?
 
Hoot Crawford said:
okay. but doesn't answer my question - who is the authority that you trust? You've made it clear you don't trust Mayo Clinic, for example, so who is it?
Click to expand...
Hoot. I and some others here were involved in the healthcare industry back when we trusted it. As it became a sick care industry and big business, at the least, I have moved away from it. When they started giving multiple batches of vaccines to babies, not just the three we got back then, I started questioning. Just the preservatives in them, like mercury, were dangerous and we started looking into things for ourselves. I very much trusted the doctors and nurses I dealt with back in the eighties. Now I do a lot of my own research with information provided from multiple sources--not just google. I am glad I have the choice as do you.
 
Tony Nathanson said:
Intelligent people trust their ability to use logic when making health decisions.
Intelligent people don't automatically trust those who profit from sales of vaccines or drugs.
Intelligent people don't trust those who have exaggerated & lied to us in the past to create fear (as mentioned in post #3)
Intelligent people think for themselves.

Just curious - are you a retired or current health care worker?
Click to expand...
lol - I'm not claiming to be an authority, so your question is irrelevant. I think for myself, but I also rely on people who are in a position to be experts. I've used Mayo Clinic as a trusted source. I would add Cleveland Clinic and John Hopkins and NIH as trusted sources, and a few others. I have zero respect/consideration for the views of random internet posters who claim to have superior knowledge, and make off-the-wall unsubstantiated claims, and who rely on urban legends ("he died in a car accident and they called it Covoid") instead of actual data. What is shown is lots of Dunning Kruger effect.

So, I'm done with this thread. Certainly nothing to be learned here. Have the day you deserve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top