To mask or not to mask....That is the question. Part II

[jsx1043]

Just found out yesterday that my employer will be requiring masks as of Monday. It also required everyone to have a gene therapy shot before August 1st. (Not that I got one, but we’ll not discuss that here. I have to figure out a way to circumvent the new mask diktat.)

When we cut loose from the masks in May, it was originally May 9th, but they relented a couple days early. Now that the masks are supposedly necessary again, why do we start wearing them on Monday? Is there not some sort of exigent circumstance that requires us to wear one, but not exigent enough to do so immediately? (And no, there’s no change in work population over the weekend.)

In May when we were set free, they said we’d not have to wear one “with proof of vaccination gene therapy injection.” I told my coworkers then that they were lying through their teeth and we’d have to wear them again. They rushed out to get their injections, and now they are pissed.

Sometimes I hate being good at what I do.


This ain’t over by a long shot y’all; it’s just getting started. If I were placing bets, I might just place one on another lockdown starting between now and the end of the month.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Claim your JW beliefs will not let you take it.

 

[chipbennett]

So. It doesn’t stop you from getting the virus. It doesn’t stop you from transmitting the virus. It doesn’t prevent hospitalization. Wtf does it do? Please, someone pro vaccine, @JeepHammer said we were stupid if we didn’t get it, so what makes us stupid for not getting it? Tell me what it does, and I’ll go with you and get it in front of you. If you can’t, I’m not taking a vaccine for a virus with a 99% survival rating and doesn’t do ****. That, to me, seems stupid.

Okay... this is some serious abuse of data and statistics. You can do better than this.

A. If 35% of those hospitalized with Covid are vaccinated, that means that 65% of those hospitalized are unvaccinated.
B. Overall hospitalizations (and, even moreso, thankfully, deaths) are way, way down from peak. Simply put: far fewer people are being hospitalized/dying from Covid.
C. The only study I've seen on "breakthrough" transmission was worthless.
D. IMHO the Delta variant is being ridiculously overblown. It appears to be more virulent but less severe/deadly (i.e. following the natural virus curve, as should be expected).
E. Put those together, and what does it look like to me? It looks like the vaccines are helping to reduce novel coronavirus into something akin to other coronaviruses, and helping to turn Covid-19 into little more than the common cold.

Don't take the vaccine if you don't want to. That's your right. I am very much pro-liberty, including matters of personal, medical decisions. If you're not in a high-risk demographic, it's also a perfectly reasonable decision.

It is also your right to make that decision from either an informed or an uninformed position. Just as I am pro-liberty, I am also anti-stupidity ("mRNA vaccines cause genetic changes") and anti-logical-fallacy (such as the above abuse of statistics).

 

[chipbennett]

Just found out yesterday that my employer will be requiring masks as of Monday. It also required everyone to have a gene therapy shot before August 1st. (Not that I got one, but we’ll not discuss that here. I have to figure out a way to circumvent the new mask diktat.)

When we cut loose from the masks in May, it was originally May 9th, but they relented a couple days early. Now that the masks are supposedly necessary again, why do we start wearing them on Monday? Is there not some sort of exigent circumstance that requires us to wear one, but not exigent enough to do so immediately? (And no, there’s no change in work population over the weekend.)

In May when we were set free, they said we’d not have to wear one “with proof of vaccination gene therapy injection.” I told my coworkers then that they were lying through their teeth and we’d have to wear them again. They rushed out to get their injections, and now they are pissed.

Sometimes I hate being good at what I do.


This ain’t over by a long shot y’all; it’s just getting started. If I were placing bets, I might just place one on another lockdown starting between now and the end of the month.

I work with a lot of CGT companies. Which gene therapy is being required of you?

(Spoiler alert: mRNA vaccines are not "gene therapy".)

 

[idkfa]

I work with a lot of CGT companies. Which gene therapy is being required of you?

(Spoiler alert: mRNA vaccines are not "gene therapy".)

The FDA begs to differ:

Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat or cure disease. Gene therapies can work by several mechanisms:

• Replacing a disease-causing gene with a healthy copy of the gene
• Inactivating a disease-causing gene that is not functioning properly
• Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease

What is Gene Therapy?

Human gene therapy is the administration of genetic material to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene product or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use.

www.fda.gov

mRNA vaccines are literally gene therapy.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Okay... this is some serious abuse of data and statistics. You can do better than this.

A. If 35% of those hospitalized with Covid are vaccinated, that means that 65% of those hospitalized are unvaccinated.
B. Overall hospitalizations (and, even moreso, thankfully, deaths) are way, way down from peak. Simply put: far fewer people are being hospitalized/dying from Covid.
C. The only study I've seen on "breakthrough" transmission was worthless.
D. IMHO the Delta variant is being ridiculously overblown. It appears to be more virulent but less severe/deadly (i.e. following the natural virus curve, as should be expected).
E. Put those together, and what does it look like to me? It looks like the vaccines are helping to reduce novel coronavirus into something akin to other coronaviruses, and helping to turn Covid-19 into little more than the common cold.

Don't take the vaccine if you don't want to. That's your right. I am very much pro-liberty, including matters of personal, medical decisions. If you're not in a high-risk demographic, it's also a perfectly reasonable decision.

It is also your right to make that decision from either an informed or an uninformed position. Just as I am pro-liberty, I am also anti-stupidity ("mRNA vaccines cause genetic changes") and anti-logical-fallacy (such as the above abuse of statistics).

A. The issue wasn’t the amount of vaccinated in the hospitals. The issue is the fact it obviously doesn’t prevent hospitalization, although it may make it less likely (by roughly 30% given the 35/65% statistic).

B. This was bound to happen with time, with or without vaccines. As more people develop antibodies and we got through the first initial wave of infections cases, hospitalizations, and deaths were naturally going to decrease.

C. As long as the CDC, WHO, and journalists apply politics to their “studies”, no statistics will be trusted without scrutiny and doubt.

D. Agree. See B.

E. Disagree. See B.


I stand by my statement, if anyone can show me 100% definitive proof of what the vaccine does, I will go with you to get it.

 

[chipbennett]

The FDA begs to differ:

What is Gene Therapy?

Human gene therapy is the administration of genetic material to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene product or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use.

www.fda.gov

mRNA vaccines are literally gene therapy.

No, FDA does not disagree, because mRNA vaccines do not modify genes. mRNA vaccines literally are not gene therapy.

mRNA vaccines don't do this:

Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease

That's not how mRNA vaccines work. Period. You are literally wrong.

I've explained mRNA vaccines before. Feel free to use the search function. Absent that, Google is your friend.

I have direct experience with gene therapies. About a half dozen of my clients right now are CGT companies. I'm not listening to so-called experts on the internet. This is literally what I do.

 

[qwerty]

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Nothing personal, just sounded like something he would say.

 

[chipbennett]

A. The issue wasn’t the amount of vaccinated in the hospitals. The issue is the fact it obviously doesn’t prevent hospitalization, although it may make it less likely (by roughly 30% given the 35/65% statistic).

B. This was bound to happen with time, with or without vaccines. As more people develop antibodies and we got through the first initial wave of infections cases, hospitalizations, and deaths were naturally going to decrease.

C. As long as the CDC, WHO, and journalists apply politics to their “studies”, no statistics will be trusted without scrutiny and doubt.

D. Agree. See B.

E. Disagree. See B.


I stand by my statement, if anyone can show me 100% definitive proof of what the vaccine does, I will go with you to get it.

A. Vaccines don't prevent hospitalization? Sacre blu! (Or: no ****, Sherlock.) That expectation is utterly unrealistic. And yet again, you're torturing data and calling it statistics.

B. Straw man.

E. Certainly, it would have happened on its own - but that reality doesn't somehow disprove that the vaccines are accelerating that occurrence.

I personally don't care if you get the vaccine or not; it's your own decision. But I'm not going to sit idly by while people torture statistics to claim that the vaccines are having no impact.

 

[nonobaddog]

No, FDA does not disagree, because mRNA vaccines do not modify genes. mRNA vaccines literally are not gene therapy.

mRNA vaccines don't do this:



That's not how mRNA vaccines work. Period. You are literally wrong.

I've explained mRNA vaccines before. Feel free to use the search function. Absent that, Google is your friend.

I have direct experience with gene therapies. About a half dozen of my clients right now are CGT companies. I'm not listening to so-called experts on the internet. This is literally what I do.

What are they doing with gene therapy these days?
It seems like the good stuff I hear is with extremely rare disorders. Any success with fairly common disorders?

 

[chipbennett]

Sorry, I couldn't resist.
View attachment 151851

 

[chipbennett]

What are they doing with gene therapy these days?
It seems like the good stuff I hear is with extremely rare disorders. Any success with fairly common disorders?

Most - at least, the ones I tend to be involved with - target rare/esoteric diseases and disorders. CGT is incredibly expensive, which means that more conventional methods - for now - are simply more financially feasible for treatment.

With most clients, I'm under NDA and can't discuss specifics. But, in general, it tends to be things for which conventional therapies are ineffective. CGT has the potential to be a "once and done" therapy, which often can justify the cost for R&D and manufacturing, especially when what is being targeted causes extreme loss of quality of life (think, loss/lack of various senses, significant dysfunction, etc.) - if not loss of life itself (e.g. otherwise untreatable, fatal cancers, etc.).

 

[ditcherman]

Okay... this is some serious abuse of data and statistics. You can do better than this.

A. If 35% of those hospitalized with Covid are vaccinated, that means that 65% of those hospitalized are unvaccinated.
B. Overall hospitalizations (and, even moreso, thankfully, deaths) are way, way down from peak. Simply put: far fewer people are being hospitalized/dying from Covid.
C. The only study I've seen on "breakthrough" transmission was worthless.
D. IMHO the Delta variant is being ridiculously overblown. It appears to be more virulent but less severe/deadly (i.e. following the natural virus curve, as should be expected).
E. Put those together, and what does it look like to me? It looks like the vaccines are helping to reduce novel coronavirus into something akin to other coronaviruses, and helping to turn Covid-19 into little more than the common cold.

Don't take the vaccine if you don't want to. That's your right. I am very much pro-liberty, including matters of personal, medical decisions. If you're not in a high-risk demographic, it's also a perfectly reasonable decision.

It is also your right to make that decision from either an informed or an uninformed position. Just as I am pro-liberty, I am also anti-stupidity ("mRNA vaccines cause genetic changes") and anti-logical-fallacy (such as the above abuse of statistics).

As one who doesn’t know exactly who to believe, coming from the viewpoint to never trust the govt, but also never trust the hype (both sides), I appreciate what you’ve brought to the thread here as a respected member who is willing to share his insight.
Many people somewhere in the middle will listen to the most reasonable voice, and while I don’t know that I agree with all you say I’m glad you brought it and show that you can believe one thing but still respect others who don’t want the shot.
We can do better, and we must do our best at this time in this place, for our country, our very way of life.

 

[Jaybird1980]

A. The issue wasn’t the amount of vaccinated in the hospitals. The issue is the fact it obviously doesn’t prevent hospitalization, although it may make it less likely (by roughly 30% given the 35/65% statistic).

B. This was bound to happen with time, with or without vaccines. As more people develop antibodies and we got through the first initial wave of infections cases, hospitalizations, and deaths were naturally going to decrease.

C. As long as the CDC, WHO, and journalists apply politics to their “studies”, no statistics will be trusted without scrutiny and doubt.

D. Agree. See B.

E. Disagree. See B.


I stand by my statement, if anyone can show me 100% definitive proof of what the vaccine does, I will go with you to get it.

One thing you also have to remember is even if you're at the hospital because of anything else, if your swab is positive that means you're in the hospital with Covid. Once again that doesn't mean you're sick from Covid, lots of people don't seem to recognize this

 

[Jaybird1980]

Most - at least, the ones I tend to be involved with - target rare/esoteric diseases and disorders. CGT is incredibly expensive, which means that more conventional methods - for now - are simply more financially feasible for treatment.

With most clients, I'm under NDA and can't discuss specifics. But, in general, it tends to be things for which conventional therapies are ineffective. CGT has the potential to be a "once and done" therapy, which often can justify the cost for R&D and manufacturing, especially when what is being targeted causes extreme loss of quality of life (think, loss/lack of various senses, significant dysfunction, etc.) - if not loss of life itself (e.g. otherwise untreatable, fatal cancers, etc.).

Get to work on something to stop or somehow reverse GVHD, my lungs will thank you very much

 

[idkfa]

No, FDA does not disagree, because mRNA vaccines do not modify genes. mRNA vaccines literally are not gene therapy.

mRNA vaccines don't do this:

That's not how mRNA vaccines work. Period. You are literally wrong.

I've explained mRNA vaccines before. Feel free to use the search function. Absent that, Google is your friend.

I have direct experience with gene therapies. About a half dozen of my clients right now are CGT companies. I'm not listening to so-called experts on the internet. This is literally what I do.

Oh, the generosity and the hubris of the Dunning-Kruger.
I assume, dear sir, you have a Ph.D. in a related field? Naturally, you must, since you speak with such authority on the subject, and it cannot come just from your clients working in that field (or your mom being a retired nurse or your cousin once removed an MD).


As to the definition of gene therapy, I can only provide the information, but I cannot comprehend it for you.
The definition in question is this:
Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease

Let's have a look if it means what I said it means, shall we?

1. Introduce
   5 : place, insert
2. Gene
   Definition of gene
   : a specific sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that is located usually on a chromosome and that is the functional unit of inheritance controlling the transmission and expression of one or more traits by specifying the structure of a particular polypeptide and especially a protein or controlling the function of other genetic material
3. Body
   : a human being

Thus, using pertinent dictionary definitions of its constituents, we can construct a more elaborate version of the FDA definition as follows:
Placing or inserting a new or modified specific sequence of nucleotides in RNA into a human being.

Which is literally what the injection of any mRNA into the body is.

Here are a few examples of scientists who literally develop mRNA gene therapies and vaccines calling them gene therapies:

Intranasal vaccination with messenger RNA as a new approach in gene therapy: Use against tuberculosis​

Therapeutic Prospects of mRNA-Based Gene Therapy for Glioblastoma​

Gene therapies ... Another approach is to deliver corrected mRNA into cells ... This approach has been pioneered by Moderna Therapeutics​

Scaffold-mediated delivery for non-viral mRNA vaccines​

(this one is literally published in Nature Gene Therapy section)​

Shocking, I know.
In all seriousness, the basis of your opinion on mRNA vaccines is your belief that gene therapy necessitates modification of the human DNA.
This is patently false.
Gene therapy means using genetic material to do something in the body, that's it.
The fact that the nature of mRNA is transient does not preclude it from containing genes and thus from literally being gene therapy.
The FDA definition is that permissive for a good reason.

I would also caution you from nonchalantly throwing passive-aggressive insults assuming that your vis-a-vis is a moron.
When you advise to "google" scientific information instead of at the very least directing one to PubMed, you come across as -- at the very least -- disdainful.
If you want to educate, flaunting your experience is simply insufficient -- and is a logical fallacy (appeal to authority).
And if you want to just point out that someone is wrong based on nothing more than your opinions and beliefs -- well, that just speaks volumes about your scientific acumen.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

A. Vaccines don't prevent hospitalization? Sacre blu! (Or: no ****, Sherlock.) That expectation is utterly unrealistic. And yet again, you're torturing data and calling it statistics.

B. Straw man.

E. Certainly, it would have happened on its own - but that reality doesn't somehow disprove that the vaccines are accelerating that occurrence.

I personally don't care if you get the vaccine or not; it's your own decision. But I'm not going to sit idly by while people torture statistics to claim that the vaccines are having no impact.

A. If they don’t prevent hospitalization, what do they do? We’ve seen them advertised as “preventing infection” then it went to “preventing transmission” then it went to “preventing hospitalization”. So now it’s not preventing anything, but “slowing” it. You can claim I’m “torturing data”, but you haven’t cited any data yourself, and it isn’t torturing data if all I’m doing is applying common sense to figures released from the CDC. I didn’t alter data. I didn’t mis-quote data. I stated the obvious, 65% hospitalized were unvaxxed, 35% weren’t. It obviously didn’t prevent it like they sold it to the public.

B. It isn’t a straw man just because you don’t have an argument against it. Nothing I said was a straw man, it’s just how viruses work. You know this, though. With or without vaccines, the infection/hospitalization/death rates were going to drop. You can’t claim they’re dropping because of vaccines, then call it a straw man when it’s pointed out they would have dropped regardless of vaccines, that’s just the natural timeline of a virus.

E. Agree to disagree. You say they’re accelerating the slowing of Covid, I’ve yet to see any proof. If you can still contract and spread the virus, how does it slow the virus? Its a feel good measure, like masks.


I agree. I’m not telling anyone not to vaccinate. Everyone is free to make the choice they deem is correct for them. If I were 80 years old I would likely feel different than I do right now at 33.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

 

[Hatin Since 87]

 

[tim87tr]

View attachment 151861

Watching a video discussion on this right now. I'm about halfway through it, YMMV, but think most would want to listen to it. This narrative is unraveling quickly in just the last month, August and September will probably be a big turning point. IMO people are realizing they've been lied to for Govt control and big Pharma financial reasons, and they're not happy.

They Killed People for Vaccine Profits – Paul Craig Roberts | Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog

By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com (Corrected and updated) International award winning journalist and former Assistant Treasury Secretary Dr. Paul Craig Roberts says the evidence is clear Covid vaccines are not safe and effective. Dr. Roberts says, “So, why the push for overriding everyone’s civil...

usawatchdog.com