B-1 83 said:

---

Monkeypoxfighter said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

VitruvianAg said:

---

Science, man!

---

The reactions to the story scream it.

---

Moderately concerned, or concernedly moderate?

---

No, just an actual scientist who read the story before screaming "Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! RNA!"

The OP even used the term "vaccine" when this isn't one, while another poster asked about testing when the article is about trials/testing.

---

Why would anyone have hesitations about this? Gee...I just can't figure it out!

---

Hesitations are one thing, calling something a "vaccine" when it clearly says it's not, and talking about testing when the article is about testing, is on the same level as folks wearing masks. It has become ridiculous automatic behavior with no real thought………just reaction like Pavlov's dog. B-1 is right on this one……..but just this one.

---

Careful………..you're going to be labeled a "COVIDIAN", a "CM", or a liberal if you keep that logical approach on this board.

---

My favorite part of this post is the condescending notion that you're the only logical one (because science!) while completely ignoring the last three years and hand waiving away why anyone might have some distrust or hesitancy.

I mean, if I have heart failure, what do I have to lose? I think it's pretty stupid to treat this in the same regard as COVID shots. That's like refusing chemo for cancer because the cdc recommended it to treat the flu and people did it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but people were dying of heart disease prior to COVID shots. Hard to call that a manufactured problem.

And I'm no fan of the COVID shots.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Monkeypoxfighter said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

VitruvianAg said:

---

Science, man!

---

The reactions to the story scream it.

---

Moderately concerned, or concernedly moderate?

---

No, just an actual scientist who read the story before screaming "Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! RNA!"

The OP even used the term "vaccine" when this isn't one, while another poster asked about testing when the article is about trials/testing.

---

Why would anyone have hesitations about this? Gee...I just can't figure it out!

---

Hesitations are one thing, calling something a "vaccine" when it clearly says it's not, and talking about testing when the article is about testing, is on the same level as folks wearing masks. It has become ridiculous automatic behavior with no real thought………just reaction like Pavlov's dog. B-1 is right on this one……..but just this one.

---

This isn't hard to understand

V
V
V

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I'm a fan of new innovations but these things will need a lot of testing. People won't trust them even if they do work well due to the farce and deceptions around CoVID and the sociopathic push to force vaccinations.

---

---

On the contrary, after reading this board for the last few years it's very easy to understand why. My point is that the article has ZERO to do with vaccines, but folks automatically jumped there due to conditioning.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Monkeypoxfighter said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

VitruvianAg said:

---

Science, man!

---

The reactions to the story scream it.

---

Moderately concerned, or concernedly moderate?

---

No, just an actual scientist who read the story before screaming "Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! RNA!"

The OP even used the term "vaccine" when this isn't one, while another poster asked about testing when the article is about trials/testing.

---

Why would anyone have hesitations about this? Gee...I just can't figure it out!

---

Hesitations are one thing, calling something a "vaccine" when it clearly says it's not, and talking about testing when the article is about testing, is on the same level as folks wearing masks. It has become ridiculous automatic behavior with no real thought………just reaction like Pavlov's dog. B-1 is right on this one……..but just this one.

---

Careful………..you're going to be labeled a "COVIDIAN", a "CM", or a liberal if you keep that logical approach on this board.

---

My favorite part of this post is the condescending notion that you're the only logical one (because science!) while completely ignoring the last three years and hand waiving away why anyone might have some distrust or hesitancy.

---

If the shoe fits…….. The article says nothing about vaccines, yet folks jumped there right away. Is that logical or fear mongering? There is sometimes a fine line, and RNA technology isn't just about vaccines.

B-1 83 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Monkeypoxfighter said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

VitruvianAg said:

---

Science, man!

---

The reactions to the story scream it.

---

Moderately concerned, or concernedly moderate?

---

No, just an actual scientist who read the story before screaming "Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! RNA!"

The OP even used the term "vaccine" when this isn't one, while another poster asked about testing when the article is about trials/testing.

---

Why would anyone have hesitations about this? Gee...I just can't figure it out!

---

Hesitations are one thing, calling something a "vaccine" when it clearly says it's not, and talking about testing when the article is about testing, is on the same level as folks wearing masks. It has become ridiculous automatic behavior with no real thought………just reaction like Pavlov's dog. B-1 is right on this one……..but just this one.

---

This isn't hard to understand

V
V
V

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I'm a fan of new innovations but these things will need a lot of testing. People won't trust them even if they do work well due to the farce and deceptions around CoVID and the sociopathic push to force vaccinations.

---

---

On the contrary, after reading this board for the last few years it's very easy to understand why. My point is that the article has ZERO to do with vaccines, but folks automatically jumped there due to conditioning.

---

I completely understand that. What I find hard to believe is that you don't understand why some would have some hesitancy after the last three years.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Monkeypoxfighter said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I'm a fan of new innovations but these things will need a lot of testing. People won't trust them even if they do work well due to the farce and deceptions around CoVID and the sociopathic push to force vaccinations.

---

And the article appears to be about……….testing.

---

Ohhh...OK. "Trust us this time".

That should alleviate everyone's skepticism.

---

"We need more testing!!!!"

Tests being done

"We don't trust tests!!!"

Classic.

Wonder if they used the info discovered in the worldwide science experiment known as the pfizer and moderna mrna covid gene therapy jab to develop this one. Hope they do a better job of testing.

My understanding is the heart problems are caused when the moderna and pfizer mrna covid
gene therapy shot is inadvertently injected into the bloodstream instead of tissue and then reaches the heart. Apparently the damage is scar tissue of the heart muscle as your body attacks any location where the gene therapy transcribes its genetic information into a cell. And whatever level your heart performed at before it now is permanently less. Heard this explanation from Bret Weinstein in his interview by Rogan.

B-1 83 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Monkeypoxfighter said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I'm a fan of new innovations but these things will need a lot of testing. People won't trust them even if they do work well due to the farce and deceptions around CoVID and the sociopathic push to force vaccinations.

---

And the article appears to be about……….testing.

---

Ohhh...OK. "Trust us this time".

That should alleviate everyone's skepticism.

---

"We need more testing!!!!"

Tests being done

"We don't trust tests!!!"

Classic.

---

Yes...some people not blindly trusting the testing from the exact same company that caused issues over the last three years while telling everyone how safe their product was...and somehow (because you're a scientist!) you condescend to others because you can't understand how anyone could be hesitant given very recent history.

Classic.

geoag58 said:

---

Wonder if they used the info discovered in the worldwide science experiment known as the pfizer and moderna mrna covid gene therapy jab to develop this one. Hope they do a better job of testing.

My understanding is the heart problems are caused when the moderna and pfizer mrna covid
gene therapy shot is inadvertently injected into the bloodstream instead of tissue and then reaches the heart. Apparently the damage is scar tissue of the heart muscle as your body attacks any location where the gene therapy transcribes its genetic information into a cell. And whatever level your heart performed at before it now is permanently less. Heard this explanation from Bret Weinstein in his interview by Rogan.

---

Wow……… Moderna truly is powerful and can see into the future……this research was started in 2017.

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/astrazeneca-moderna-pen-deal-for-mrna-heart-failure-drug

Your reading skills aren't so good, are they? I said I fully understood why people would be hesitant. Do you trust any testing of any meds?

B-1 83 said:

---

geoag58 said:

---

Wonder if they used the info discovered in the worldwide science experiment known as the pfizer and moderna mrna covid gene therapy jab to develop this one. Hope they do a better job of testing.

My understanding is the heart problems are caused when the moderna and pfizer mrna covid
gene therapy shot is inadvertently injected into the bloodstream instead of tissue and then reaches the heart. Apparently the damage is scar tissue of the heart muscle as your body attacks any location where the gene therapy transcribes its genetic information into a cell. And whatever level your heart performed at before it now is permanently less. Heard this explanation from Bret Weinstein in his interview by Rogan.

---

Wow……… Moderna truly is powerful and can see into the future……this research was started in 2017.

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/astrazeneca-moderna-pen-deal-for-mrna-heart-failure-drug

---

So are you saying they should have known their covid gene therapy jab would be problematic if it enters the bloodstream and makes it's way to the heart because of their research into the mechanism of heart gene therapy beginning in 2017?

WOW!!!

That's quite a leap……off the logic cliff. You must be an engineer.

B-1 83 said:

---

That's quite a leap……off the logic cliff. You must be an engineer.

---

By all means explain your position and how it differs from the explanation I heard from Dr Weinstein, an expert in the field of biology. Dr Weinstein claims the mrna moderna and pfizer covid gene therapy shots, when administered in a way that allow it to reach the heart, can cause permanent heart damage.

geoag58 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

That's quite a leap……off the logic cliff. You must be an engineer.

---

By all means explain your position and how it differs from the explanation I heard from Dr Weinstein, an expert in the field of biology. Dr Weinstein claims the mrna moderna and pfizer covid gene therapy shots, when administered in a way that allow it to reach the heart, can cause permanent heart damage.

---

A position quite easy to explain, if you'll bother to read. Moderna's treatment for heart attacks involves stimulating the heart - and only the heart - to produce a hormone proven to benefit patients. This research was begun years before COVID even hit the scene. The COVID mRNA vaccines (as bad as they turned out to be) were trying to teach your immune system to recognize and attack COVID. The design was pretty much a failure due to variants of the target virus popping up overnight (by Wuhan design, no doubt). I'm reasonably sure heart muscle cells don't have variants. Apples, meet oranges. Your Dr. Weinstein could be right as rain, and I'm not even arguing that point, but what that has to do with the new treatment for heart attacks, that started before COVID, is certainly questionable.

If you're somehow hitching your wagon to the notion that Moderna was seeking a treatment for damage from a vaccine that didn't exist, then nothing I say will likely sway you.

Note: Calling mRNA COVID "vaccines" "gene therapy" really doesn't really help your position. It may sound trendy and edgy on F16, but they're really not. They don't mess with DNA.

https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/blog/why-mrna-vaccines-arent-gene-therapies/

Big Bang Theory:

Quote:

---

Leonard: You don't go into science for the money.

Bernadette: Speak for yourself. Last month my company both invented and cured restless eye syndrome. Ka-ching, ya blinky chumps!

---

B-1 83 said:

---

geoag58 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

That's quite a leap……off the logic cliff. You must be an engineer.

---

By all means explain your position and how it differs from the explanation I heard from Dr Weinstein, an expert in the field of biology. Dr Weinstein claims the mrna moderna and pfizer covid gene therapy shots, when administered in a way that allow it to reach the heart, can cause permanent heart damage.

---

A position quite easy to explain, if you'll bother to read. Moderna's treatment for heart attacks involves stimulating the heart - and only the heart - to produce a hormone proven to benefit patients. This research was begun years before COVID even hit the scene. The COVID mRNA vaccines (as bad as they turned out to be) were trying to teach your immune system to recognize and attack COVID. The design was pretty much a failure due to variants of the target virus popping up overnight (by Wuhan design, no doubt). I'm reasonably sure heart muscle cells don't have variants. Apples, meet oranges. Your Dr. Weinstein could be right as rain, and I'm not even arguing that point, but what that has to do with the new treatment for heart attacks, that started before COVID, is certainly questionable.

If you're somehow hitching your wagon to the notion that Moderna was seeking a treatment for damage from a vaccine that didn't exist, then nothing I say will likely sway you.

Note: Calling mRNA COVID "vaccines" "gene therapy" really doesn't really help your position. It may sound trendy and edgy on F16, but they're really not. They don't mess with DNA.

https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/blog/why-mrna-vaccines-arent-gene-therapies/

---

Well the covid gene therapy shot is not a vaccine. The covid gene therapy sends rna to transcibe the message for the celk to produce something. So I think the description gene therapy comes a lot closer than vaccine. Vaccine is absolutely the incorrect name. Please show us your posts arguing that the shot is not a vaccine.

Nomenclature said:

---

one safe place said:

---

Hey, did they test this one?

---

They don't ask questions, or test anything, they just fix the problem! It's great!

I've allready had 3 doses and I fe

---

geoag58 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

geoag58 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

That's quite a leap……off the logic cliff. You must be an engineer.

---

By all means explain your position and how it differs from the explanation I heard from Dr Weinstein, an expert in the field of biology. Dr Weinstein claims the mrna moderna and pfizer covid gene therapy shots, when administered in a way that allow it to reach the heart, can cause permanent heart damage.

---

A position quite easy to explain, if you'll bother to read. Moderna's treatment for heart attacks involves stimulating the heart - and only the heart - to produce a hormone proven to benefit patients. This research was begun years before COVID even hit the scene. The COVID mRNA vaccines (as bad as they turned out to be) were trying to teach your immune system to recognize and attack COVID. The design was pretty much a failure due to variants of the target virus popping up overnight (by Wuhan design, no doubt). I'm reasonably sure heart muscle cells don't have variants. Apples, meet oranges. Your Dr. Weinstein could be right as rain, and I'm not even arguing that point, but what that has to do with the new treatment for heart attacks, that started before COVID, is certainly questionable.

If you're somehow hitching your wagon to the notion that Moderna was seeking a treatment for damage from a vaccine that didn't exist, then nothing I say will likely sway you.

Note: Calling mRNA COVID "vaccines" "gene therapy" really doesn't really help your position. It may sound trendy and edgy on F16, but they're really not. They don't mess with DNA.

https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/blog/why-mrna-vaccines-arent-gene-therapies/

---

Well the covid gene therapy shot is not a vaccine. The covid gene therapy sends rna to transcibe the message for the celk to produce something. So I think the description gene therapy comes a lot closer than vaccine. Vaccine is absolutely the incorrect name. Please show us your posts arguing that the shot is not a vaccine.

---

I have consistently put "vaccine" in quotation marks, and even put in black and white my opinion that the COVID "vaccines" turned out to be very poor ones in this very thread. Please show me where the heart attack treatment is or has been advertised as such (like the OP's "citation" claims), and maybe you'll see the point of my very first post. Apples and oranges as to what the two applications and purposes of mRNA technology are being used for.

While you're at it, please show us where the mRNA "vaccines" change DNA (a true "gene therapy").

B-1 83 said:

---

geoag58 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

geoag58 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

That's quite a leap……off the logic cliff. You must be an engineer.

---

By all means explain your position and how it differs from the explanation I heard from Dr Weinstein, an expert in the field of biology. Dr Weinstein claims the mrna moderna and pfizer covid gene therapy shots, when administered in a way that allow it to reach the heart, can cause permanent heart damage.

---

A position quite easy to explain, if you'll bother to read. Moderna's treatment for heart attacks involves stimulating the heart - and only the heart - to produce a hormone proven to benefit patients. This research was begun years before COVID even hit the scene. The COVID mRNA vaccines (as bad as they turned out to be) were trying to teach your immune system to recognize and attack COVID. The design was pretty much a failure due to variants of the target virus popping up overnight (by Wuhan design, no doubt). I'm reasonably sure heart muscle cells don't have variants. Apples, meet oranges. Your Dr. Weinstein could be right as rain, and I'm not even arguing that point, but what that has to do with the new treatment for heart attacks, that started before COVID, is certainly questionable.

If you're somehow hitching your wagon to the notion that Moderna was seeking a treatment for damage from a vaccine that didn't exist, then nothing I say will likely sway you.

Note: Calling mRNA COVID "vaccines" "gene therapy" really doesn't really help your position. It may sound trendy and edgy on F16, but they're really not. They don't mess with DNA.

https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/blog/why-mrna-vaccines-arent-gene-therapies/

---

Well the covid gene therapy shot is not a vaccine. The covid gene therapy sends rna to transcibe the message for the celk to produce something. So I think the description gene therapy comes a lot closer than vaccine. Vaccine is absolutely the incorrect name. Please show us your posts arguing that the shot is not a vaccine.

---

I have consistently put "vaccine" in quotation marks, and even put in black and white my opinion that the COVID "vaccines" turned out to be very poor ones in this very thread. Please show me where the heart attack treatment is or has been advertised as such (like the OP's "citation" claims), and maybe you'll see the point of my very first post. Apples and oranges as to what the two applications and purposes of mRNA technology are being used for.

---

The "vaccine" quote you are attributing to me is actually not by me but by the reporter who wrote the article.

The reporter even used the term "vaccine" in quotes.

Remember the definition of a vaccine has changed with the introduction of mRNA.

Quote:

---

CDC definition now:
Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

---

So injecting mRNA into the heart to stimulate a response could now be loosely used, it does not have to be an immune response to a virus.

TChaney said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

geoag58 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

geoag58 said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

That's quite a leap……off the logic cliff. You must be an engineer.

---

By all means explain your position and how it differs from the explanation I heard from Dr Weinstein, an expert in the field of biology. Dr Weinstein claims the mrna moderna and pfizer covid gene therapy shots, when administered in a way that allow it to reach the heart, can cause permanent heart damage.

---

A position quite easy to explain, if you'll bother to read. Moderna's treatment for heart attacks involves stimulating the heart - and only the heart - to produce a hormone proven to benefit patients. This research was begun years before COVID even hit the scene. The COVID mRNA vaccines (as bad as they turned out to be) were trying to teach your immune system to recognize and attack COVID. The design was pretty much a failure due to variants of the target virus popping up overnight (by Wuhan design, no doubt). I'm reasonably sure heart muscle cells don't have variants. Apples, meet oranges. Your Dr. Weinstein could be right as rain, and I'm not even arguing that point, but what that has to do with the new treatment for heart attacks, that started before COVID, is certainly questionable.

If you're somehow hitching your wagon to the notion that Moderna was seeking a treatment for damage from a vaccine that didn't exist, then nothing I say will likely sway you.

Note: Calling mRNA COVID "vaccines" "gene therapy" really doesn't really help your position. It may sound trendy and edgy on F16, but they're really not. They don't mess with DNA.

https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/blog/why-mrna-vaccines-arent-gene-therapies/

---

Well the covid gene therapy shot is not a vaccine. The covid gene therapy sends rna to transcibe the message for the celk to produce something. So I think the description gene therapy comes a lot closer than vaccine. Vaccine is absolutely the incorrect name. Please show us your posts arguing that the shot is not a vaccine.

---

I have consistently put "vaccine" in quotation marks, and even put in black and white my opinion that the COVID "vaccines" turned out to be very poor ones in this very thread. Please show me where the heart attack treatment is or has been advertised as such (like the OP's "citation" claims), and maybe you'll see the point of my very first post. Apples and oranges as to what the two applications and purposes of mRNA technology are being used for.

---

The "vaccine" quote you are attributing to me is actually not by me but by the reporter who wrote the article.

The reporter even used the term "vaccine" in quotes.

Remember the definition of a vaccine has changed with the introduction of mRNA.

Quote:

---

CDC definition now:
Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

---

So injecting mRNA into the heart to stimulate a response could now be loosely used, it does not have to be an immune response to a virus.

---

Not really. There is no immune response or disease involved here. They simply want a hormone produced to treat a heart attack - a "treatment" for what's essentially an injury really doesn't fit those definitions. A steroid shot would almost meet the simplest concept of "stimulating a response", and I don't think anyone would call it a vaccine.