-
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!
To boost or not to boost?
- Thread starter Jedi Knight
- Start date
I believe it came from the Wuhan lab, simply because of previous instances involving coronavirus and China. I do not think it was intentional, but looking at reports of the lab (violations and complaints) I think it was neglect or poor safety practices.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
If, of course, we knew what the long term effects of these drugs were. We don't. I will still take my chances with the virus.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
but that can be said for ALL medicine! I take medication for my blood pressure, some of the serious side effects are, irregular heart beats, and even heart failure! Metformin can cause memory loss, and risk dementia!
The long term side effects argument is rubbish.
There has been so much misinformation spread on social media we cannot expect people not to be concerned about rubbish. But still.....rubbish it is.
It's a cop out for those who are opposed to, or are afraid of, vaccinations. Prior to vovid we saw this with the MMR vaccine.
The idea mRNA in general will haveong term side-effects (and that mRNA vacvines don't work if boosters are needed) has been proven wrong with the 2013 mRNA vaccine.
The covid-19 Pfizer vacvine has been given for going on 2 years with no long term sude-effects noted. As the vacvine, spiked proteins, mRNA, lipids....i.e., everything that could affect the body....are not present after a month there are no long term side-effects to worry about. The concern is still short-term side-effects. But they are not common (they are statistically rare).
Anti-covid-vaxers are opposed to the vaccination because of politics. I said before they are modern day "flat-earthers", only with a different subject.
20 years from now, if we still have covid and are giving vaccinations, we will see them complaining that long term side-effects are unknown. For them "long term" is a moving target to comfort their fears as one after one their worries are proven wrong.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
No it is not. We know what the possible long term effects are of those medications and we can make decisions accordingly. We do not know that with the vaccines so it is rubbish to say that is rubbish. The virus has a LOW mortality rate. I'll take my chances with it.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Just when I thought your garbage could not get any worse you post this. This post is full of misinformation and falshoods, some would say a word we are not allowed to say. You continually mislead on people who have not taken the vaccine and that is wrong and sinful.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
As I said before, it should be a personal choice. But it is irresponsible for anyone to attack the Covid vaccine just because they don't want to take it
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Did I attack the vaccine? No I did not. I attack mandates, yes. But I do not attack the vaccine itself.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
your posts are clear that you think that the "science" for the vaccine is not to be trusted! In this you are very wrong. The mandates are in place by governments around the world, as a safe-guard against its spearding, especailly with the old and vulnerable, and those with health issues.
FROM -- Relative to Dr Martin's video
Developing MCMs for Coronaviruses - Rapid Medical Countermeasure Response to Infectious Diseases - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)
nih,gov GEE
Emerging infectious disease threats that may not have available treatments or vaccines can directly affect the security of the world's health since these diseases also know no boundaries and will easily cross borders. Sustaining public and private investment in the development of medical countermeasures (MCMs) before an emerging infectious disease becomes a public health emergency in the United States has been extremely challenging. Interest and momentum peak during a crisis and wane between events, and there is little interest in disease threats outside the United States until they impact people stateside.
On March 26 and 27, 2015, the Institute of Medicine convened a workshop in Washington, DC to discuss how to achieve rapid and nimble MCM capability for new and emerging threats. Public- and private-sector stakeholders examined recent efforts to prepare for and respond to outbreaks of Ebola Virus Disease, pandemic influenza, and coronaviruses from policy, budget, and operational standpoints. Participants discussed the need for rapid access to MCM to ensure national security and considered strategies and business models that could enhance stakeholder interest and investment in sustainable response capabilities. This report summarizes the presentations and discussions from this workshop.
Section 6
FROM
Lack of Public Understanding of Threats
Investors are interested at the height of a crisis, Daszak said. He pointed out that the share value for Roche Holding, a Swiss global health care company, increased during the H1N1 influenza pandemic. Unfortunately, as discussed, the interest and hype are short lived and focused around the outbreak. Daszak shared a story of a publication in Nature describing SARS in China and work done with colleagues from China's government-funded laboratory. The publication garnered no interest from the Chinese government, he said, and no one they talked with from the live animal markets seemed concerned about the findings. What was surprising for Daszak was how little interest was shown in the article from outside governments and the general public. Based on his experience and understanding, significant attention and interest should have come out of that article, but instead only a few virologists were interested in the paper for academic purposes—again showing the strong influence the media can have on public perception of threats.
Daszak also shared that during the recent Ebola outbreak, EcoHealth Alliance issued a press release and an analysis predicting which countries would be the first to be infected as a result of global air travel.2 The United States was predicted to be one of the top three countries that would receive infected individuals from countries with EVD, and it was predicted the patient would arrive into Dulles, Boston Logan, Newark, and/or JFK airport. They anticipated a lot of attention and coverage, but instead, again, there was very minimal pickup by the media. Daszak reiterated that, until an infectious disease crisis is very real, present, and at an emergency threshold, it is often largely ignored. To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, he said, we need to increase public understanding of the need for MCMs such as a pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of process, Daszak stated.
Well if you can't achieve one by nature why don't we, by gain of function, create something we can call a pandemic. After all we are within forty eight hours of already having a vaccine and we can get the MSM to push for taking it. Course we already know because of variants we will need boosters. And who knows maybe smallpox will make a comeback and we will need need a new mRNA vaccine for it.
Man, when are you going to learn. If they talk about it, it will take place. Just like a good boy scout, be prepared.
would one think Daszak is speaking of profits?
Developing MCMs for Coronaviruses - Rapid Medical Countermeasure Response to Infectious Diseases - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)
nih,gov GEE
Emerging infectious disease threats that may not have available treatments or vaccines can directly affect the security of the world's health since these diseases also know no boundaries and will easily cross borders. Sustaining public and private investment in the development of medical countermeasures (MCMs) before an emerging infectious disease becomes a public health emergency in the United States has been extremely challenging. Interest and momentum peak during a crisis and wane between events, and there is little interest in disease threats outside the United States until they impact people stateside.
On March 26 and 27, 2015, the Institute of Medicine convened a workshop in Washington, DC to discuss how to achieve rapid and nimble MCM capability for new and emerging threats. Public- and private-sector stakeholders examined recent efforts to prepare for and respond to outbreaks of Ebola Virus Disease, pandemic influenza, and coronaviruses from policy, budget, and operational standpoints. Participants discussed the need for rapid access to MCM to ensure national security and considered strategies and business models that could enhance stakeholder interest and investment in sustainable response capabilities. This report summarizes the presentations and discussions from this workshop.
Section 6
FROM
Lack of Public Understanding of Threats
Investors are interested at the height of a crisis, Daszak said. He pointed out that the share value for Roche Holding, a Swiss global health care company, increased during the H1N1 influenza pandemic. Unfortunately, as discussed, the interest and hype are short lived and focused around the outbreak. Daszak shared a story of a publication in Nature describing SARS in China and work done with colleagues from China's government-funded laboratory. The publication garnered no interest from the Chinese government, he said, and no one they talked with from the live animal markets seemed concerned about the findings. What was surprising for Daszak was how little interest was shown in the article from outside governments and the general public. Based on his experience and understanding, significant attention and interest should have come out of that article, but instead only a few virologists were interested in the paper for academic purposes—again showing the strong influence the media can have on public perception of threats.
Daszak also shared that during the recent Ebola outbreak, EcoHealth Alliance issued a press release and an analysis predicting which countries would be the first to be infected as a result of global air travel.2 The United States was predicted to be one of the top three countries that would receive infected individuals from countries with EVD, and it was predicted the patient would arrive into Dulles, Boston Logan, Newark, and/or JFK airport. They anticipated a lot of attention and coverage, but instead, again, there was very minimal pickup by the media. Daszak reiterated that, until an infectious disease crisis is very real, present, and at an emergency threshold, it is often largely ignored. To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, he said, we need to increase public understanding of the need for MCMs such as a pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of process, Daszak stated.
Well if you can't achieve one by nature why don't we, by gain of function, create something we can call a pandemic. After all we are within forty eight hours of already having a vaccine and we can get the MSM to push for taking it. Course we already know because of variants we will need boosters. And who knows maybe smallpox will make a comeback and we will need need a new mRNA vaccine for it.
Man, when are you going to learn. If they talk about it, it will take place. Just like a good boy scout, be prepared.
would one think Daszak is speaking of profits?
Last edited:
yes they do ... as they are supposed to do with a natural response to infection ... or to more of the pathogen than a single component.
You are not producing antibodies for all pathogens to which you've been exposed/infected; naturally nor for which you've received a vax.
The "antibody test" for immunity is a red herring. Ditto the need for an additional cv vax ... if the cv vax is really a vax.
I agree.
My point is that immunity decreases, regardless of how it is acquired. Focus should not be on antibodies present (either from vaccination or from having been infected).
But the presence of antibodies does point to at least some level of protection.
The covid vaccine is (by definition) a vaccine regardless of how well it works.
we do know.
our military intelligence has known no later than May '20. They know the name of the CCP agent at the lab in Wuhan who erred in the handling protocol and, yes, the virus got to the now infamous wet market.
They also know it was "gain-of-function'd" (as we now know that term) ... to be a biodisruptor for the CCP's purposes which included an attack on our election. it was supposed to be deployed in at least 5 of our major airports in early May '20. Do the math. I'd say it's disrupted.
but that's my point ... according to the people I know ... who know. (MDs; immunologists, virologists) ... immunity is present for the rest of your life to that virus and those like it if you've had a cell-mediated immune response. The "second level" response. Usually innate response is sufficient to dispatch most invaders.
This doesn't mean one will never be sick, but it DOES mean the immune system is going to perform if it's well maintained.
I've NEVER heard Fauci talk about this.
KenH
Well-Known Member
I don't know.
Last edited:
But we already know immunity is not present for the rest of our lives after infection with covid or after vaccination. People have had natural immune responces both ways - either via a man made virus or a man made vaccine.
Yet people have had covid several times (often the 2nd or 3rd time worse than the 1st) and there have been "breakthrough" cases as well.
The reason for boosters is to maintain a level of antibodies. Most multiple cases of covid happen after time has passed between infection. Same with the vaccine.
Another question involves "long term effects". Why expect long term effects from a man made vacvine but not a man made virus?
A coworker had covid last year. She said it was horrible. She was not hospitalized but said she was afraid she was going to die as she had difficulty breathing.
She got covid again this past March. It was even worse and lasted a week longer. Because of this she was vaccinated (she was afraid she wouldn't survive a 3rd infection).
So I don't buy the immune for life either way. There are very few viruses that after infection provide lifetime immunity, and no coronavirus or respiratory viruses.
She got covid again this past March. It was even worse and lasted a week longer. Because of this she was vaccinated (she was afraid she wouldn't survive a 3rd infection).
So I don't buy the immune for life either way. There are very few viruses that after infection provide lifetime immunity, and no coronavirus or respiratory viruses.
AH! so "we" was either an error or presumption.
Not seeking to be snarky ... I realize I benefit from personally knowing one of the officers in the intel business; "I can't tell you how I know..." is what was prefaced in the aforementioned information which is now generally accepted, but then it was right wing conspiracy kookville according to some media outlets.
