Vaccine, DNA and Miscarrages

[JonC]

So, you are telling me only two months of trial data was submitted on the Chicken Pox vaccine?

The longest part, of course, is the production of a vaccine. This typically took up to 10 years, but one of the fastest was the mumps vacvine. Why? Because it, like the covid vacvines, relied on already existing research.

Trials are conducted in three phases.

Let's not pretend vacvines were approved in 2 months (that would be dishonest).

It took Pfizer about 15 months to be approved.

 

[Reynolds]

The longest part, of course, is the production of a vaccine. This typically took up to 10 years, but one of the fastest was the mumps vacvine. Why? Because it, like the covid vacvines, relied on already existing research.

Trials are conducted in three phases.

Let's not pretend vacvines were approved in 2 months (that would be dishonest).

It took Pfizer about 15 months to be approved.

You the ones that said two months of trials?
How long did Mumps vax take for approval?
This vaccine is based on new technology (J&J excluded). That makes your Mumps comparison illogical.

 

[just-want-peace]

Jon, it seems to me that you are wanting to apply TODAYS situation - politically - to the vax situations of yester-year. This is the same strategy the left tries to apply to slavery and negate real/true/actual history.
Health orgs of yester-year dealt with HEALTH, & health only - today, at least IMHO, politics is telling "health" what to say/do/implement!!!
When gov't inserts itself into medical decisions (mandates, THREATS of mandates, masks-yes, masks-no, vax passports , yada, yada, yada ) medical advice suddenly becomes extremely questionable.
Jon, you've noted several times that you do not watch the news, & I understand your reasoning, as I watch very little; but, BUT, you should not belittle those who do and are repulsed by it.
You quite frequently say that "'xxx' is not happening", and use that as a basis for condemning the point being made. If you would spend a bit of time actually watching the news you would find that a lot IS NOT happening, - yet - but, BUT, it is in the process of being thrown out as bait to gauge the public reaction, & whether this certain "program" will fly or not!
I too have been vaxed, but I fully understand the reluctance of others due to politics being so intrusive in this brouhaha.
I got vaxed simply because my Dr advised it, most likely due to my age - 84 - & even then I did it reluctantly.
I totally & completely grasp the hesitancy to "jab" simply because **** I don't care how well the results of verifying the safety of them is/was, LONG TERM EFFECTS ARE NOT KNOWN****!!!
For things of this nature, "LONG TERM", IMHO, would be several years minimum to be proven OK.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if Biden et al would SHUT UP re: this bug, and concentrate on the safety of this nation (their primary reason for existence), this bug would be history within 6 months or less as people resumed their life without the accompanying fear that is so prevalent to day!!!

'Course it would not hurt for them (govt) to quit incentivizing the masses to become couch potatos either!

 

[JonC]

Jon, it seems to me that you are wanting to apply TODAYS situation - politically - to the vax situations of yester-year. This is the same strategy the left tries to apply to slavery and negate real/true/actual history.
Health orgs of yester-year dealt with HEALTH, & health only - today, at least IMHO, politics is telling "health" what to say/do/implement!!!
When gov't inserts itself into medical decisions (mandates, THREATS of mandates, masks-yes, masks-no, vax passports , yada, yada, yada ) medical advice suddenly becomes extremely questionable.
Jon, you've noted several times that you do not watch the news, & I understand your reasoning, as I watch very little; but, BUT, you should not belittle those who do and are repulsed by it.
You quite frequently say that "'xxx' is not happening", and use that as a basis for condemning the point being made. If you would spend a bit of time actually watching the news you would find that a lot IS NOT happening, - yet - but, BUT, it is in the process of being thrown out as bait to gauge the public reaction, & whether this certain "program" will fly or not!
I too have been vaxed, but I fully understand the reluctance of others due to politics being so intrusive in this brouhaha.
I got vaxed simply because my Dr advised it, most likely due to my age - 84 - & even then I did it reluctantly.
I totally & completely grasp the hesitancy to "jab" simply because **** I don't care how well the results of verifying the safety of them is/was, LONG TERM EFFECTS ARE NOT KNOWN****!!!
For things of this nature, "LONG TERM", IMHO, would be several years minimum to be proven OK.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if Biden et al would SHUT UP re: this bug, and concentrate on the safety of this nation (their primary reason for existence), this bug would be history within 6 months or less as people resumed their life without the accompanying fear that is so prevalent to day!!!

'Course it would not hurt for them (govt) to quit incentivizing the masses to become couch potatos either!

No, actually. I did use older examples but these realizations have made recent advancements and are continuing to do research. One area is, in fact, with childhood immunizations. But there are other areas as well.

We cannot say these organizations are untrustworthy simply because we don't like a vaccine, but all of a sudden yoyr kid gets sick and they are trustworthy.

I disagree regarding the long term effects as being a concern. The Pfizer vacvine was studied for 15 months before being approved. It underwent all three phases.

What was cut short was not the approval process but the development (as pre-exting technology that had been studied as a means to vaccinate since 2010) and the red tape (often to do with funding, but also the ability to move forward in development at simultaneous steps).

The clinical trials and studies were on par (no short cuts).

What we know from a little over 17 months of studying the vaccibe is no unexpected side-effects have occurred.

Now you may say 17 months is not "long term", but it is for studying a vacvine. And it is without ANY unexpected side-effects or risks above what was predicted (it is actually less).

So why would we even suspect long term side-effects in a vacvine that leaves the body in less than a month?

The reason is only distrust that has been created through misinformation campaigns.

Think about it. It has been a little over 17 months since the 1st Pfizer shot was given. And NO unexpected side-effects. Do the anti-vaxers say "just wait....". Wait for what? 5 years? 10 years?

It is just an empty claim to scare people. There is no indication that there could even be long-term effects except they be related to more immediate effects (like mycoplasma).

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

What is the moral difference between aborting a child and killing a child by denying life saving medical treatment?

The reason I ask is these institutions you suggest cannot be trusted are the same institutions that saved hundreds of thousands of children through their development of prenatal treatments, in vivo measures, and methods of saving babies born premature.

If people took your view regarding these agencies and organizations then thousands of babies that have lived would have died.

Had they made decisions based on your advice regarding these organizations then you would have effectively killed more babies than any single abortionist.

God is a God of means. These organizations do not perform miracles - God performs miracles through them.

Two Points:
1. I would agree with your point if the Mayo Clinic was the only option, but the Mayo Clinic is not the only organization capable of providing life saving treatment and advice. There are Pro-Life, Christian options. Therefore not listening to the Mayo clinic would not lead to a child's death, the child's life would merely be saved elsewhere.

2. In an emergency, when the life of a child is at immediate risk, nobody cares who provides aid. When there is not an emergency, such as right now, we have the luxury of choosing the most reputable source to listen to. The foundation of a reputable medical source would begin with God.

 

[JonC]

Two Points:
1. I would agree with your point if the Mayo Clinic was the only option, but the Mayo Clinic is not the only organization capable of providing life saving treatment and advice. There are Pro-Life, Christian options. Therefore not listening to the Mayo clinic would not lead to a child's death, the child's life would merely be saved elsewhere.

2. In an emergency, when the life of a child is at immediate risk, nobody cares who provides aid. When there is not an emergency, such as right now, we have the luxury of choosing the most reputable source to listen to. The foundation of a reputable medical source would begin with God.

I am not talking about seeking treatment but using the scientific advancements that were made avaliable through these organizations.

A Christian doctor at a Christian facility is still depending on treatments developed by these institutions deemed untrustworthy by the anti-vax crowd.