Which Vaccine Would You Choose?

[Brunolem]

31 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Please provide a reference to your claim that mRNA vaccines were used on monkeys in 2003 and caused problems years later.  This is fake anti-vax information, as I showed you above.

 

Then you play word games insinuating mRNA vaccines are 'not approved' as if that is somehow different from other vaccines. One of the major reasons for developing mRNA vaccines is their increased safety. 

 

I am afraid that you are very misinformed, and I would suggest you read the abundant literature available on these subjects.

 

mRNA is gene therapy, and not vaccine by the usual standards, which are about injecting a dead or deactivated virus to the patients, in order to make their immune system react to this unwelcome host.

 

mRNA has never been used on humans, that is until now.

 

mRNA tests have been done on animals before, and all of of them died, which may explain why it was not tested on humans...until now of course.

 

The current gene therapies/vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna have not been officially "approved" by the USFDA, but have been authorized for emergency reasons (which is a way of avoiding legal backlash in case things go wrong).

 

The people who have been receiving the jabs since December are acting as de facto human guinea pigs in what should have been phase 3 trials, which were skipped, or much shortened, for emergency reasons.

 

Unless one is able to travel, or see, in the future, it is impossible to determine whether these so-called vaccines are efficient and safe...for lack of hindsight.

 

Yet, a growing number of cases have already been reported of people infected with covid 19 despite being vaccinated...all the more reason to be careful and not give into panic...

[ourdon]

On 4/22/2021 at 5:15 AM, Elkski said:

I heard that the pfizer and moderna actually have more blood clots per million people by a factor of 4 or more vs J&J. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/blood-clots-as-prevalent-with-pfizer-and-moderna-vaccine-as-with-astrazenecas-report/ar-BB1fGdIu

 

One theory on blood clots is they are not pulling back on the needle to check to see if they are in a vein so some people are getting injected partly intravenous. 

 I signed up for the moderna but got the JJ 6 weeks ago tomorrow.  I have mixed feelings as it is showing 70% effective rather than 95%  for Pfizer. But I guess all the top 3 prevent death.  But I still worry a 30% of getting the virus and the long term damage some doctors are finding.  

I feel confident in the progress of genetic science and understand enough to think mRNA technology is sound.   

I think anti vax people are stupid. 

 

The vaccine isn't injected into a vein, it is intramuscular,  just popped into your arm muscle.

 

Don't worry about the efficacy variation of the J & J.  They had their main trials in Britain, South Africa and Brazil during the height of the variants.  Pfizer and Moderna completed their tests before the rise of the variants.  Scientists expect the Pfizer Moderna and J & J jabs to be roughly equal in the real variant rich world.

 

As far as the J & J blood clots go, (the 1 in 500,000 chance) they have ALL happened to women between the ages of 18 to 58.  Basically Puberty to Menopause.   They will I'm sure come up with reasons why in due course.   If you fall into these gender/age range and are nervous, the MRNA vaccines do not have this restriction.  If you must take the J & J or the AZ check with the doctor for symptoms to be aware of.

 

Stay positive ... Test negative

[rabas]

8 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

I am afraid that you are very misinformed, and I would suggest you read the abundant literature available on these subjects.

 

mRNA is gene therapy, and not vaccine by the usual standards, which are about injecting a dead or deactivated virus to the patients, in order to make their immune system react to this unwelcome host.

 

mRNA has never been used on humans, that is until now.

 

mRNA tests have been done on animals before, and all of of them died, which may explain why it was not tested on humans...until now of course.

 

The current gene therapies/vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna have not been officially "approved" by the USFDA, but have been authorized for emergency reasons (which is a way of avoiding legal backlash in case things go wrong).

 

The people who have been receiving the jabs since December are acting as de facto human guinea pigs in what should have been phase 3 trials, which were skipped, or much shortened, for emergency reasons.

 

Unless one is able to travel, or see, in the future, it is impossible to determine whether these so-called vaccines are efficient and safe...for lack of hindsight.

 

Yet, a growing number of cases have already been reported of people infected with covid 19 despite being vaccinated...all the more reason to be careful and not give into panic...

 

Either you didn't read what I wrote or you are simply confused.  Read:

 

The prior poster falsely claimed  mRNA SARS-1 vaccines were used on monkeys in 2003 and problems arose 3 years later. This is anti-vax fake information.  I asked for his proof.

 

If you think I am wrong,  you too can post proof that such vaccines were used.

 

The rest of your post reads like standard anti-vax material, including emotional plea and factual misrepresentation.

 

[rabas]

On 4/22/2021 at 6:15 PM, Elkski said:

I heard that the pfizer and moderna actually have more blood clots per million people by a factor of 4 or more vs J&J. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/blood-clots-as-prevalent-with-pfizer-and-moderna-vaccine-as-with-astrazenecas-report/ar-BB1fGdIu

 

One theory on blood clots is they are not pulling back on the needle to check to see if they are in a vein so some people are getting injected partly intravenous. 

 I signed up for the moderna but got the JJ 6 weeks ago tomorrow.  I have mixed feelings as it is showing 70% effective rather than 95%  for Pfizer. But I guess all the top 3 prevent death.  But I still worry a 30% of getting the virus and the long term damage some doctors are finding.  

I feel confident in the progress of genetic science and understand enough to think mRNA technology is sound.   

I think anti vax people are stupid.

 

Poster claims: "I heard that the pfizer and moderna actually have more blood clots per million people by a factor of 4 or more vs J&J"

 

Posts reference claiming: 4 in 1 million people experience cerebral venous thrombosis after getting the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, versus 5 in 1 million people for the AstraZeneca vaccine.

 

[Jeffr2]

50 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

I am afraid that you are very misinformed, and I would suggest you read the abundant literature available on these subjects.

 

mRNA is gene therapy, and not vaccine by the usual standards, which are about injecting a dead or deactivated virus to the patients, in order to make their immune system react to this unwelcome host.

 

mRNA has never been used on humans, that is until now.

 

mRNA tests have been done on animals before, and all of of them died, which may explain why it was not tested on humans...until now of course.

 

The current gene therapies/vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna have not been officially "approved" by the USFDA, but have been authorized for emergency reasons (which is a way of avoiding legal backlash in case things go wrong).

 

The people who have been receiving the jabs since December are acting as de facto human guinea pigs in what should have been phase 3 trials, which were skipped, or much shortened, for emergency reasons.

 

Unless one is able to travel, or see, in the future, it is impossible to determine whether these so-called vaccines are efficient and safe...for lack of hindsight.

 

Yet, a growing number of cases have already been reported of people infected with covid 19 despite being vaccinated...all the more reason to be careful and not give into panic...

I'm afraid you have been misinformed.  mRNA vaccines have been used on humans.

 

https://www.phgfoundation.org/briefing/rna-vaccines

 

Quote

Clinical trials have been carried out or are ongoing on mRNA vaccines for influenza, cytomegalovirus, HIV-1, rabies and Zika virus.

 

 

From 2008.  A clinical trial of an mRNA vaccine:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18481387/

[Brunolem]

2 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

I'm afraid you have been misinformed.  mRNA vaccines have been used on humans.

 

https://www.phgfoundation.org/briefing/rna-vaccines

 

 

 

From 2008.  A clinical trial of an mRNA vaccine:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18481387/

Did you even read the post you are linking to?

 

Here is a paragraph title:

 

"How could RNA vaccines be used for human health?"

 

Note the "could"...there is absolutely no mention of any actual use.

 

But feel free to correct me by quoting from your article...if you can...

 

As for the trials, or rather pre-trial, on a grand total of 15 patients more than 12 years ago, that is not much before jumping to a global vaccination program...but obviously some persons are less demanding than others...

Edited April 25, 2021 by Brunolem

[Brunolem]

2 hours ago, rabas said:

 

The rest of your post reads like standard anti-vax material, including emotional plea and factual misrepresentation.

 

You are welcome to present facts that refute those I presented above...a more constructive approach than coming up with the usual "anti-vax" like an exorcist brandishing the cross to repel the devil.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Brunolem

[Jeffr2]

25 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

Did you even read the post you are linking to?

 

Here is a paragraph title:

 

"How could RNA vaccines be used for human health?"

 

Note the "could"...there is absolutely no mention of any actual use.

 

But feel free to correct me by quoting from your article...if you can...

 

As for the trials, or rather pre-trial, on a grand total of 15 patients more than 12 years ago, that is not much before jumping to a global vaccination program...but obviously some persons are less demanding than others...

Human clinical trials have been done with mRNA vaccines. Nothing approved. Just trials.

[rabas]

17 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

You are welcome to present facts that rebut those I presented above...a more constructive approach than coming up with the usual "anti-vax" like an exorcist brandishing the cross to repel the devil.

 

Nice deflection from the fact that you were wrong and that I was asking you to provide proof.  Which you refuse to provide. 

 

 

[Brunolem]

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Human clinical trials have been done with mRNA vaccines. Nothing approved. Just trials.

And that is enough for you?

 

Jumping from small trials, years ago, to massive public use at the turn of a switch...

[Brunolem]

2 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Nice deflection from the fact that you were wrong and that I was asking you to provide proof.  Which you refuse to provide. 

 

 

It doesn't work like this in the real world.

 

Where am I wrong...and why?

 

Let's see what I wrote:

 

mRNA is gene therapy: wrong? how so?

 

mRNA has never been used on humans before: wrong? how so?

 

Pfizer and Moderna vaccines not yet approved: wrong? how so?

 

We don't know if these new vaccines will prove to be efficient and safe: wrong? how so?

 

Already vaccinated people have been infected with covid 19: wrong? how so? 

[Jeffr2]

11 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

And that is enough for you?

 

Jumping from small trials, years ago, to massive public use at the turn of a switch...

I agree with you on that.  But you said no human had been injected with an mRNA Jab. I was just showing there were human trials.

 

Crazy times require crazy solutions.

[unblocktheplanet]

Novavax had no admen on staff. They missed their chance with Novax!

 

The reason nobody's choosing this relatively safe vax is because it's been largely unpublicised.

 

Second choice, Sputnik; third, J&J. Prefer adenovirus-based vax.

[Captain Monday]

On 4/24/2021 at 6:55 PM, Jeffr2 said:

My brother is doing jabs in Arizona.  You can pick what jab you want.  They've got all 3, now that J&J is back in action.

 

But I would guess not every facility has every jab.  He works at a hospital.  So I guess they've got access to all of them.

That is the choice. I made an appointment for the Pfizer。If I showed up and they said today we are giving Moderna I would have walked out.  Nobody can force a needle in your arm yet.

[simon43]

Based on my own scientific understanding of vaccines, I'd choose the Sputnik V one.  It is available in Laos (donated by Russia), but right now AZ is the vaccine on offer to my group (60+ years).

[retsdon]

I didn't have a choice but was happy that I was give Pfizer. Not sure where I'll manage to get a booster in Thailand though, when the time comes for it.

[AndyFoxy]

4 hours ago, simon43 said:

Based on my own scientific understanding of vaccines, I'd choose the Sputnik V one.  It is available in Laos (donated by Russia), but right now AZ is the vaccine on offer to my group (60+ years).

I think the AZ is available to under 60s as well. The wife's friend  is in Vientiane and managed to get the first jab.

Edited April 28, 2021 by AndyFoxy

[cdemundo]

On 4/24/2021 at 10:40 PM, Brunolem said:

mRNA is gene therapy, and not vaccine by the usual standards, which are about injecting a dead or deactivated virus to the patients, in order to make their immune system react to this unwelcome host.

And?

 

[covidiot]

back in farangland, they have threatened to not lift restrictions until 75% of people have received the jab.

 

also, according to one doctor, if your immune system is already strong, taking a jab creates what he calls a hyper-immune response ... which sounds like a bad thing. no idea if the doctor is reputable. but it makes no difference. we will all need to take it sooner or later to function in society.

 

[DavisH]

On 4/25/2021 at 4:19 PM, Brunolem said:

It doesn't work like this in the real world.

 

Where am I wrong...and why?

 

Let's see what I wrote:

 

mRNA is gene therapy: wrong? how so?

 

mRNA has never been used on humans before: wrong? how so?

 

Pfizer and Moderna vaccines not yet approved: wrong? how so?

 

We don't know if these new vaccines will prove to be efficient and safe: wrong? how so?

 

Already vaccinated people have been infected with covid 19: wrong? how so? 

Not gene therapy: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/03/17/covid-19-mrna-vaccines-are-not-gene-therapy-as-some-are-claiming/?sh=675b17053d20

 

[Brunolem]

7 hours ago, DavisH said:

Not gene therapy: https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/03/17/covid-19-mrna-vaccines-are-not-gene-therapy-as-some-are-claiming/?sh=675b17053d20

 

Actually they call it RNA therapy, which is a derivative of gene therapy:

 

https://hsci.harvard.edu/translation/what-are-drugs-4-gene-therapies

 

I won't argue on the branding of the therapy, but one sure thing is that it is an experimental therapy, and I am comfortable letting others experimenting while I observe...

 

[Jeffr2]

2 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

Actually they call it RNA therapy, which is a derivative of gene therapy:

 

https://hsci.harvard.edu/translation/what-are-drugs-4-gene-therapies

 

I won't argue on the branding of the therapy, but one sure thing is that it is an experimental therapy, and I am comfortable letting others experimenting while I observe...

 

I'm guessing that with over 1 billion Pfizer jabs given, it's probably OK.  Long term issues are a consideration.  But so far, looks great!!!  And better than dying from Covid.

[Phillip9]

6 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

Actually they call it RNA therapy, which is a derivative of gene therapy:

 

It's not even RNA therapy.  Thats a completely different thing.  Sure, Moderna was developing that too, but its completely different.

[Randy Murican]

And then there's this:

 

https://www.rawstory.com/brazil-says-russian-vaccine-carried-live-cold/

[Brunolem]

7 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

I'm guessing that with over 1 billion Pfizer jabs given, it's probably OK.  Long term issues are a consideration.  But so far, looks great!!!  And better than dying from Covid.

So far, Joe Biden (and everyone else) is still wearing a mask, or two, 3 months after getting his shots...

 

Plus Pfizer is now saying that its vaccine protects (?) only for 6 months...after that it's another shot, then another one...

 

Doesn't look all that great to me...

Edited April 29, 2021 by Brunolem

[Phillip9]

9 hours ago, Brunolem said:

So far, Joe Biden (and everyone else) is still wearing a mask, or two, 3 months after getting his shots...

 

Apparently you missed the latest CDC guidance, and the press conference where Biden took off his mask yesterday.

[Scott]

Although the mask question is a little off-topic, here are the new CDC guidelines for the US.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-mask-guidelines-covid-vaccine/

 

[Damrongsak]

19 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

I'm guessing that with over 1 billion Pfizer jabs given, it's probably OK.  Long term issues are a consideration.  But so far, looks great!!!  And better than dying from Covid.

That's why I got it.  I didn't have side effects other than a sore spot on my arm for half a day.  Although I have noticed the hair on my ear lobes seems to be growing faster than before.

[Brunolem]

4 hours ago, Phillip9 said:

 

Apparently you missed the latest CDC guidance, and the press conference where Biden took off his mask yesterday.

Just read the text sent by Scott above...I am not impressed.

 

There are still multiple situations in which fully vaccinated persons need to wear a mask.

 

The CDC rules underline its lack of confidence in the efficiency of the vaccines...probably for good reason.

 

On top of that, despite having vaccinated more than 100 million people, the US still has over 50,000 cases per day, less than half the number of India and five times the number of Thailand (once adjusted to account for the difference in the size of the population), countries where barely anyone has yet been vaccinated...

[Sametboy2019]

http://parkinsonsecrets.com/blog/2021/1/18/covid-19-vaccine-comparison-chart