37818
Well-Known Member
So the United States of America motto "In God We Trust" is totally in vain.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A vaccine study.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
Yes. The term is "ceremonial deism". The SCOTUS first used the term in 1984.
Israel does
Yes, and the sin is not taking care of the temple of their bodies by getting vaccinated.
Seems like you are avoiding the particulars of this issue by sermonizing. I agree with all you say here - how is that in any way an argument for recklessly eschewing the vaccine?
37818
Well-Known Member
As a nation we are not what we once was.
Bologna
No, the State of Israel does not. It is impossible to honor God without honoring the Son. To know the Son is to know the Father. Israel is enamored with itself. They think that THEY shall rule the nations without Jesus.
What good does it do to put "In God We Trust" on currency and "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, whilst removing the Bible and prayer from schools, and legalizing abortion and same-sex marriage.
Depart from me, I never knew you, is appropriate for nations that do such things.
Scott Downey
Well-Known Member
Reminds me of the Greeks in Athens with Paul.
Acts 17:23
for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you:
God is unknown, unknowable without Christ.
nonaeroterraqueous
Active Member
I suppose you could be forgiven for not recognizing the names of the researchers in the article I already linked to you. That was the the Salk article. To ease your offended sensibilities, I'll link something with the Salk name on it:
The novel coronavirus’ spike protein plays additional key role in illness - Salk Institute for Biological Studies
Notice the similar pictures. Notice the names of the quoted individuals.
"In the new study, the researchers created a “pseudovirus” that was surrounded by SARS-CoV-2 classic crown of spike proteins, but did not contain any actual virus. Exposure to this pseudovirus resulted in damage to the lungs and arteries of an animal model—proving that the spike protein alone was enough to cause disease. Tissue samples showed inflammation in endothelial cells lining the pulmonary artery walls."
Let's recap what we've learned, here:
1) The spike protein is pathogenic all by itself. (Salk)
2) The vaccine causes your body to create the spike protein. (Pfizer)
3) The vaccine gets distributed all throughout your body. (Pfizer)
All this is to say that...
Is true,
and...
is a half-truth coupled with a lie. It's a blatant and easily disproved lie.
Correction - this is your faulty inference from what the Salk article said.
I guarantee you cannot find any evidence in the article itself that the vaccines are toxic in the sense you are implying.
The Salk people never assert that the vaccines are toxic in this article you have posted.
Let's see what one expert has to say about this:
In the interview, Bridle says that the spike proteins generated by the vaccines don’t stay in the shoulder muscle, but spread and are “causing so much damage in other parts of the bodies of the vaccinated.” But Dr. Adam Ratner, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at NYU Langone Health, said that vaccines are mostly concentrated at the site of injection or the local lymph nodes.
“What was said in the radio show was completely inaccurate,” Ratner said. “There is no spike protein in the vaccines first of all. The amounts that are made after the mRNA is injected are very small and it almost exclusively stays locally. It is nowhere near the amount he was talking about.”
And here is what other experts say:
Research shows that spike proteins (here) remain stuck to the cell surface around the injection site and do not travel to other parts of the body via the bloodstream, they added. The 1% of the vaccine that does reach the bloodstream is destroyed by liver enzymes.
And yet another expert chimes in:
"Bridle is suggesting that a study that noted minuscule quantities of spike protein in blood after first dose represent a health hazard," David Fisman, an epidemiology professor at the University of Toronto, said in an email. "That is poppycock: biologically implausible and not data-based."
"Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
I council thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see."
I council thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see."
I don't believe much else that he had to say, but he got that part right.
nonaeroterraqueous
Active Member
Apparently Dr. Adam Ratner is a lying idiot. The pharmicokinetics study done by Pfizer already establishes that the injection travels throughout the body. Did Ratner perform a pharmicokinetics study on the vaccine? No, he didn't. He's full of himself.
Well, if you say so that is good enough for me...
Seriously though, I have cited multiple other experts who challenge Dr. Bridle. I suppose they are all "lying idiots" too.
Citation please.
nonaeroterraqueous
Active Member
1) The spike protein is toxic. It's a vascular toxin.
2) The vaccine causes the spike protein to be produced in your body
3) The vaccine travels throughout your body.
These are the points I assert, and they are supported by the studies by Pfizer and Salk. If you have a disagreement with any of these points, then you'll have to show me how your evidence or reasoning is any better than that of the scientists of Salk and Pfizer. Until then, I'll assume you lost this argument. If you took the injection, then I guarantee you did harm to your body. You have no case against that.
nonaeroterraqueous
Active Member
I already did. Did you read the article?
nonaeroterraqueous
Active Member
What makes them experts? Did they perform a pharmicokinetics study on the vaccine?
No, they didn't. They're making statements based on their own assumptions.