Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
No. Wrong. I never said such. You are twisting my words. Some might call that lying.
Never been in a vaccine Jon. Have integrity.
-
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!
Dishonorable Discharge
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
- Status
We have to use statistical data, but yes....we never really know. Maybe smoking is really safe and those who died of lung cancer (like my father at 51) would have died of lung cancer even if they never smoked. This is what I mean by denying science.
YOU are way out of line. You should not have gone there (implying I am lying). That was wrong of you.
ModeRNA Technologies have worked with mRNA vacvines in the past (none used commercially). They were started in 2010 to research these vaccines. I never said they were in vacvines released to the public.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Your opinion.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Intentionally twisting someone's words is lying Jon. I was being nice but you are forcing my hand.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Then it is irrelevant
Yeah, they are so tested…..here is a conclusion from a Dec.2020 study at University of Pennsylvania:
Conclusions
of first patient enrollment.
The current evidence base on messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines is made up entirely of small early-stage trials, nearly all of which examined only short-term outcomes. They lack sufficient power for testing the statistical significance of most results, and for assessing the risk of serious but uncommon adverse events.
The size of these trials and their dual purpose in evaluating dosing and safety precludes quantitative synthesis or GRADE analysis of their results, but there are a few trends that appear to be consistent across the different studies. Systemic adverse effects such as fatigue, headache, muscle aches, and chills are common following administration of mRNA vaccines, but they usually resolve within a day or two. Localized adverse effects, most notably pain at the injection site, are also common, and also resolve within a day or two. The rate of severe adverse effects (severe enough to interfere with a person’s daily activities) appears to be in the range of 5 to 10 percent. The rate and severity of adverse events increases with vaccine dose. The rate and severity of adverse events also appears to be greater following a second dose of vaccine than following the first.
©2020 Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.
CEP Evidence Review: mRNA vaccines 15
Larger clinical trials of mRNA vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus are in progress, and their results are expected in mid- 2021. Once evidence from those trials is published, more certain conclusions about the safety of these vaccines may be reached. Additional trials will be necessary to determine the relative safety of mRNA vaccines and vaccines using more established technologies.
Clinical guidance specific to the use of mRNA vaccines is lacking at this time, because of the lack of clinical evidence.
yep another personal attack
No. You are crossing a line. Christians need to behave in a Christ-like manner.
I often fail on doing this, but it is not an opinion.
Truth is not subjective - it is objective (there is no such thing as "your truth" or "my truth").
In regards to this topic, perhaps you never questioned the expediency of the vaccine production. I may have you confused with someone else.
But if that is the case you could tell me I am wrong and correct the error. You do not have the capacity, however, to know if I am lying. So to imply that I am is crossing the line set forth by God in how brethren are to interact.
You crossed that line. You questioned not my conclusions or statements but my integrity without even providing evidence country to my assumption.
That was wrong of you.
Uh.....no.....not a personal attack at all.
Apparently I misunderstood @Reformed1689 to believe that the vaccine was rushed and a suitable trial of the vaccibe was not conducted. I may have been thinking of someone else.
But that is in no way, shape or form a personal attack.
Your post, however, probably dies constitute a personal attack. But we all expect that, so don't worry about it.
That is your opinion.
Science differs. Vaccines are produced and tested. Sometimes for viability and sometimes for public release.
But it is very relevant that mRNA is not new and has been studied as a safer way of vaccinating people against viruses.
I did not intentionally twist your words. Why do you think otherwise?
Brother, you are making assumptions and missing the mark.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
No you said I questioned the science Jon. There is a difference.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
I'm not the one missing here Jon.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Not new, but also not tested before now in real-world settings.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
That was not the argument you made.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Saying I don't believe science is a personal attack. Have some integrity about what you did or did not say.
That is what I understood you to be doing. Like I said, I ciukd have misunderstood you but that does not justify you questioning my integrity over it.
We have had many believing (contrary to svience) that mRNA vacvines are gene therapies, that the current vaccines bypassed normal standards, that spike proteins are poison, that covid is a new world conspiracy, etc. I could have confused you with one of them.
It is not an issue of integrity but, if I was wrong, a lack f understanding on my part.
There is a difference.
Yes, that is my argument (over the science behind the mRNA vaccines). Sorry if I was not clear.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
It did, in fact, bypass NORMAL standards. They did not take the normal steps, they overlapped steps.
- Status