It blows my mind how someone can become a complete shill for vaccine and can act like they believe in science, but really are just drinking the koolaid shoved down their throat.

Salute The Marines said:

---

I can't wait to see people deny life saving mrna cancer treatments and try some animal medication from tractor supply instead.

---

Small company my wife works has been developing an mRNA inoculation to treat Ewing's Sarcoma. Basically the same mechanism as the COVID shot.

Or rather, I should say they developed - almost a decade ago - and it's not FDA approved yet. Eight+ years of trials and red tape for a treatment to cure a disease that is about 50% fatal and mostly affects children. The only other option being to get chemo-wrecked which you know, has a couple little side effects...

So there is nothing remotely silly about having doubts about the 'vaccine', without having to be a complete denier of the technology and its future potential.

Salute The Marines said:

---

I can't wait to see people deny life saving mrna cancer treatments and try some animal medication from tractor supply instead.

---

This medicine won Nobel Prize for use in humans,,not horses. Try not to spread false information, it helps no one. I believe most medicines are developed on animals and converted to humans, not a doctor though.

This seems like much more of an indictment of the FDA than mRNA technology. The FDA takes on average 12 years to approve a drug, and the process costs more than $1 billion (not a typo).

Consider the story of Omegaven.. nutrient that saves babies with digestive problems. It took 14 years from the first baby saved in the US by the drug (imported from Europe, where it was already approved) to FDA approval. Six years from application to approval - which is about half the normal time, to their credit.

The plus is that people have a huge amount of trust in medicine in the US, and nobody expects medicine to kill you because it is snake oil or has low quality. The minus is that there are almost certainly drugs that could save lives which are either in the decade+ process of approval or which will never be approved due to the cost and difficulty, and lives will be lost in the meantime.

tk111 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

I can't wait to see people deny life saving mrna cancer treatments and try some animal medication from tractor supply instead.

---

Small company my wife works has been developing an mRNA inoculation to treat Ewing's Sarcoma. Basically the same mechanism as the COVID shot.

Or rather, I should say they developed - almost a decade ago - and it's not FDA approved yet. Eight+ years of trials and red tape for a treatment to cure a disease that is about 50% fatal and mostly affects children. The only other option being to get chemo-wrecked which you know, has a couple little side effects...

So there is nothing remotely silly about having doubts about the 'vaccine', without having to be a complete denier of the technology and its future potential.

---

If your wife's project had the funding and R&D effort behind the vaccines it would have been approved quicker.

OK, since you refuse to answer, yet continue to post, its obvious you believe what you believe, despite any and all new information. As Twain said, its easier to fool someone than to convince that same someone that they have been fooled.

Salute The Marines said:

---

tk111 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

I can't wait to see people deny life saving mrna cancer treatments and try some animal medication from tractor supply instead.

---

Small company my wife works has been developing an mRNA inoculation to treat Ewing's Sarcoma. Basically the same mechanism as the COVID shot.

Or rather, I should say they developed - almost a decade ago - and it's not FDA approved yet. Eight+ years of trials and red tape for a treatment to cure a disease that is about 50% fatal and mostly affects children. The only other option being to get chemo-wrecked which you know, has a couple little side effects...

So there is nothing remotely silly about having doubts about the 'vaccine', without having to be a complete denier of the technology and its future potential.

---

If your wife's project had the funding and R&D effort behind the vaccines it would have been approved quicker.

---

Missed the point entirely. The drug was already developed. Trials to both prove the desired effects and even moreso the lack of undesired effects take many years. Money doesn't change how long time passes bud.

Zobel said:

---

I don't understand. That is the only reason we know any drug is safe in humans. In the end that's the only way you can find out.

---

key word....MILLIONS of people.

JR Ewing said:

---

This was on the Premium Board, but it was very very interesting and seemed plausible. Worth a 17 minute viewing on what the "vaccine" is doing to people...

https://rumble.com/vkopys-a-pathologist-summary-of-what-these-jabs-do-to-the-brain-and-other-organs.html

---

Thanks for the link, very informative and more than worth the time to watch.

I am sure this video and doctor will be shouted down by many people. When the message from this video is, there is evidence of post vaccine reactions, how serious and how wide spread are they - "we don't know".

This doctor said repeatedly "we don't know" we need more time for study before possibly inflicting widespread damage.

tk111 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

tk111 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

I can't wait to see people deny life saving mrna cancer treatments and try some animal medication from tractor supply instead.

---

Small company my wife works has been developing an mRNA inoculation to treat Ewing's Sarcoma. Basically the same mechanism as the COVID shot.

Or rather, I should say they developed - almost a decade ago - and it's not FDA approved yet. Eight+ years of trials and red tape for a treatment to cure a disease that is about 50% fatal and mostly affects children. The only other option being to get chemo-wrecked which you know, has a couple little side effects...

So there is nothing remotely silly about having doubts about the 'vaccine', without having to be a complete denier of the technology and its future potential.

---

If your wife's project had the funding and R&D effort behind the vaccines it would have been approved quicker.

---

Missed the point entirely. The drug was already developed. Trials to both prove the desired effects and even moreso the lack of undesired effects take many years. Money doesn't change how long time passes bud.

---

Time is not always relevant.

Salute The Marines said:

---

tk111 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

tk111 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

I can't wait to see people deny life saving mrna cancer treatments and try some animal medication from tractor supply instead.

---

Small company my wife works has been developing an mRNA inoculation to treat Ewing's Sarcoma. Basically the same mechanism as the COVID shot.

Or rather, I should say they developed - almost a decade ago - and it's not FDA approved yet. Eight+ years of trials and red tape for a treatment to cure a disease that is about 50% fatal and mostly affects children. The only other option being to get chemo-wrecked which you know, has a couple little side effects...

So there is nothing remotely silly about having doubts about the 'vaccine', without having to be a complete denier of the technology and its future potential.

---

If your wife's project had the funding and R&D effort behind the vaccines it would have been approved quicker.

---

Missed the point entirely. The drug was already developed. Trials to both prove the desired effects and even moreso the lack of undesired effects take many years. Money doesn't change how long time passes bud.

---

Time is not always relevant.

---

Complete, baseless nonsense.

CCP Joe Veggie said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

tk111 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

tk111 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

I can't wait to see people deny life saving mrna cancer treatments and try some animal medication from tractor supply instead.

---

Small company my wife works has been developing an mRNA inoculation to treat Ewing's Sarcoma. Basically the same mechanism as the COVID shot.

Or rather, I should say they developed - almost a decade ago - and it's not FDA approved yet. Eight+ years of trials and red tape for a treatment to cure a disease that is about 50% fatal and mostly affects children. The only other option being to get chemo-wrecked which you know, has a couple little side effects...

So there is nothing remotely silly about having doubts about the 'vaccine', without having to be a complete denier of the technology and its future potential.

---

If your wife's project had the funding and R&D effort behind the vaccines it would have been approved quicker.

---

Missed the point entirely. The drug was already developed. Trials to both prove the desired effects and even moreso the lack of undesired effects take many years. Money doesn't change how long time passes bud.

---

Time is not always relevant.

---

Complete, baseless nonsense.

---

If you know the mechanism of something, and the behavior, you do not always need time to prove theories or predictions. This is common in all areas of science.

I'm sorry but I still don't understand what you mean. When you're talking about development safety and efficacy trials are usually done with a up to 3,000 people. For the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine phase 3 trials, they used around 30,000 and 40,000 participants each.

When drugs have rare side effects - like the 1 in 20,000 cardiomyopathy from the covid shots - you can't expect to see that in a trial of only 3,000 people. The fact that millions of people have taken these should make us much more confident in the safety profile than we would be for a typical drug at this stage, not less.

Salute The Marines said:

---

CCP Joe Veggie said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

tk111 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

tk111 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

I can't wait to see people deny life saving mrna cancer treatments and try some animal medication from tractor supply instead.

---

Small company my wife works has been developing an mRNA inoculation to treat Ewing's Sarcoma. Basically the same mechanism as the COVID shot.

Or rather, I should say they developed - almost a decade ago - and it's not FDA approved yet. Eight+ years of trials and red tape for a treatment to cure a disease that is about 50% fatal and mostly affects children. The only other option being to get chemo-wrecked which you know, has a couple little side effects...

So there is nothing remotely silly about having doubts about the 'vaccine', without having to be a complete denier of the technology and its future potential.

---

If your wife's project had the funding and R&D effort behind the vaccines it would have been approved quicker.

---

Missed the point entirely. The drug was already developed. Trials to both prove the desired effects and even moreso the lack of undesired effects take many years. Money doesn't change how long time passes bud.

---

Time is not always relevant.

---

Complete, baseless nonsense.

---

If you know the mechanism of something, and the behavior, you do not always need time to prove theories or predictions. This is common in all areas of science.

---

To know the long term effect of a new, complex drug, you need to allow it to play out over a long term. That's why drug companies typically take 8-10 years on a vax. It's why all new drugs are tested over a long period.

This is kind of an interesting topic. But just spitballing I can think of two huge things that could influence how long it would take to physically do clinical trials - the number of qualified candidates (how common is the disease?) and duration (how long does it take to treat, recover, and follow up?). If the disease is fairly rare, and the condition takes a long time to recover from with treatment or has a high risk of reoccurrence or something it would make sense that the trials may take a long time. Not all diseases are like that.

As far as I have read companies are only required to submit six months of follow-up data from their clinical trials to apply for full approval.

So is it the trials that take many years? Or is it the FDA's review and approval process? Those are two really different things.

Salute The Marines said:

---

CCP Joe Veggie said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

I can't wait to see people deny life saving mrna cancer treatments and try some animal medication from tractor supply instead.

---

Man, you are all in. Malone invented the tech. I'd say he knows a little about it. Pride comes before the fall.

---

Mrna technology is a game changer and I'm definitely all in. They are miracles of modern medicine.

---

Thoughts on Regen Biopharma?
https://www.regenbiopharmainc.com/

Zobel said:

---

I'm sorry but I still don't understand what you mean. When you're talking about development safety and efficacy trials are usually done with a up to 3,000 people. For the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine phase 3 trials, they used around 30,000 and 40,000 participants each.

When drugs have rare side effects - like the 1 in 20,000 cardiomyopathy from the covid shots - you can't expect to see that in a trial of only 3,000 people. The fact that millions of people have taken these should make us much more confident in the safety profile than we would be for a typical drug at this stage, not less.

---

I don't understand why you are being so obtuse. The drug trials you mentioned are multiple year studies with people who have not been coerced to participate either by societal, governmental, or financial means. You are saying we know the vaccines are safe BECAUSE they have been TESTED on millions of people without having long term studies. I don't understand why you can't see how backwards that thought is.

Zobel said:

---

This is kind of an interesting topic. But just spitballing I can think of two huge things that could influence how long it would take to physically do clinical trials - the number of qualified candidates (how common is the disease?) and duration (how long does it take to treat, recover, and follow up?). If the disease is fairly rare, and the condition takes a long time to recover from with treatment or has a high risk of reoccurrence or something it would make sense that the trials may take a long time. Not all diseases are like that.

As far as I have read companies are only required to submit six months of follow-up data from their clinical trials to apply for full approval.

So is it the trials that take many years? Or is it the FDA's review and approval process? Those are two really different things.

---

The patient number is highly dependent on the disease (Ewing's for instance is rare, the trials have included far less than 3000) but I know part of their requirements were follow up patient evaluations several years after treatment (I want to say they have done four years on some but not sure on that), which I imagine also fluctuates based on type of disease/treatment.

The tail end that also adds a lot of time is approving the manufacturing procedure. This part could likely be sped up with more funding/support/size but most people really don't understand how monumentally different is to work with genetic material than a normal drug made up of some synthetic compound.

There's no doubt that there is bloat and inefficiency involved as with any federal agency, but it probably all lends itself to what you said earlier - the long process gives people confidence in the product, and when you cut that time down to <5% of what it normally takes, and then try to ram it down everyone's throats...it shouldn't be a surprise that there is hesitancy.

Tibbers said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

CCP Joe Veggie said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

I can't wait to see people deny life saving mrna cancer treatments and try some animal medication from tractor supply instead.

---

Man, you are all in. Malone invented the tech. I'd say he knows a little about it. Pride comes before the fall.

---

Mrna technology is a game changer and I'm definitely all in. They are miracles of modern medicine.

---

Thoughts on Regen Biopharma?
https://www.regenbiopharmainc.com/

---

This company, as well as the mRNA vaccines are straight up genetic tampering, there are many examples where man thinks it is smarter than nature, the unintended consequences of such endeavors are usually ignored in the interest of advancing science. My point is, a very very high dose of skepticism should be approached when evaluating such technologies and companies.

Zobel said:

---

This is kind of an interesting topic. But just spitballing I can think of two huge things that could influence how long it would take to physically do clinical trials - the number of qualified candidates (how common is the disease?) and duration (how long does it take to treat, recover, and follow up?). If the disease is fairly rare, and the condition takes a long time to recover from with treatment or has a high risk of reoccurrence or something it would make sense that the trials may take a long time. Not all diseases are like that.

As far as I have read companies are only required to submit six months of follow-up data from their clinical trials to apply for full approval.

So is it the trials that take many years? Or is it the FDA's review and approval process? Those are two really different things.

---

How can one predict possible genetic side effects of mother and baby without the mother being pregnant and the baby having time to gestate and then present symptoms?

But this is the exact same scenario with every drug that is on the market. You have phase 1/2 trials with small numbers, then a phase 3 with ~3000 people. FDA reviews that, says yep drug is safe (or not). Then you give it to millions of people (phase 4). Sometimes in phase 4 you see rare side effects you could not have detected before.

Every time you've taken any drug you were part of that "test".

There's no functional difference between what was done with these vaccines versus any other drug except the time to move through those steps. They went through phase 1/2, then much larger than normal phase 3 (10x the usual size trial), and now they're in de-facto phase 4.

Why would there be genetic side effects from an mRNA vaccine in the first place?

The CDC and its leaders should be held legally liable. They are not giving info to American citizens. Instead they lie and hold back truth about vaccinated and unvaccinated cases.

Zobel said:

---

But this is the exact same scenario with every drug that is on the market. You have phase 1/2 trials with small numbers, then a phase 3 with ~3000 people. FDA reviews that, says yep drug is safe (or not). Then you give it to millions of people (phase 4). Sometimes in phase 4 you see rare side effects you could not have detected before.

Every time you've taken any drug you were part of that "test".

There's no functional difference between what was done with these vaccines versus any other drug except the time to move through those steps. They went through phase 1/2, then much larger than normal phase 3 (10x the usual size trial), and now they're in de-facto phase 4.

---

But if most vaccines take years to get FDA approval then researchers and patients have time to see side effects. Not with CV. I've read on this site people in industry that say it takes this amount Of time to prove safety . These vaccines are no different. And no, ive never taken a vaccine where I was phase 4 of study.

This presumes that the years for FDA approval is monitoring side effects. I don't think that's the case, you can submit for approval with only 6 months of data. Just because it takes ten years to get through the regulatory process doesn't mean you have ten years of safety data.

Anyway pregnant women are excluded from almost all trials, but some women got pregnant during the phase III mRNA trials. And some pregnant women have chosen to get vaccinated, and those were studied (here). And then there was a are trials held for the vaccines in pregnant women (US started in Feb, UK started in May). I'd say if you're pregnant then wait for those results, that's not unreasonable at all.

Zobel said:

---

But this is the exact same scenario with every drug that is on the market. You have phase 1/2 trials with small numbers, then a phase 3 with ~3000 people. FDA reviews that, says yep drug is safe (or not). Then you give it to millions of people (phase 4). Sometimes in phase 4 you see rare side effects you could not have detected before.

Every time you've taken any drug you were part of that "test".

There's no functional difference between what was done with these vaccines versus any other drug except the time to move through those steps. They went through phase 1/2, then much larger than normal phase 3 (10x the usual size trial), and now they're in de-facto phase 4.

---

and the fact that non-participants are being shamed, fired, outcast, called conspiracy nuts, etc....yeah no difference...all while there are or may be therapeutic alternatives that are actively being suppressed.

I can't do anything about any of that, and I don't agree with it. Sorry.

This is your "expert"?

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2021/07/29/baylor-health-sues-covid-19-vaccine-skeptic-and-demands-dallas-doctor-stop-using-its-name/

NefariousAg said:

---

This is your "expert"?

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2021/07/29/baylor-health-sues-covid-19-vaccine-skeptic-and-demands-dallas-doctor-stop-using-its-name/

---

Sorry, I am not subscribing to the dallas morning news.

NefariousAg said:

---

This is your "expert"?

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2021/07/29/baylor-health-sues-covid-19-vaccine-skeptic-and-demands-dallas-doctor-stop-using-its-name/

---

Lawsuit over name usage in printed material and other avenues is about as far from a refutation as you can get.

NefariousAg said:

---

This is your "expert"?

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2021/07/29/baylor-health-sues-covid-19-vaccine-skeptic-and-demands-dallas-doctor-stop-using-its-name/

---

You might want to take an intro to logic class.