Discussion about this post

User's avatar
LCNY's avatar

On item number 4- can you remind us of what studies you've determined to be the best evidence that these new-tech mRNA injections are appropriate for any population? Can you link to a source that we might read?

Because I for one am struggling with some of the basic, original claims as I understand them - i.e.:

- that the mRNA would stay at the injection site and so to would the resulting spike protein production (a Japanese study seems to refute this)

- that the mRNA would degrade "quickly" (but a Pfizer scientist I spoke to was very clear that there "Is no off-switch, per se" for an mRNA synthetically designed to evade the body's immuno response)

- that the mRNA would not transcribe to DNA (somwhere I read about a study where it transcribed to liver DNA ?)

-that relying on "antibodies generated" is any kind if useful surrogate endpoint moving forward in the brave new world of endless jiggering of the synthetic mRNA for pre-approved boosters

I am also concerned about the early trials in general with regard to efficacy claims made. How can we trust any of the numbers when it appears that all the statistical tricks in the industry were used to initially claim such a high risk reduction - never mind that relative risk vs absolute risk were never fully discussed within the public policy effort to mandate uptake for the whole globe?

Expand full comment
coords1306's avatar

I mean when it approaches the level of religious belief complete with dogmatic rituals and blind faith, does it then make the FDA and CDC unconstitutional on the grounds of separation of church and state?

Expand full comment
15 more comments...

No posts