Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Message added by ShiaChat Mod

Warning! Views expressed and sources provided here may be false, misleading, and may not reflect proper medical science. Please refer to a licensed medical professional concerning health related issues. 

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

This is a 2015 news.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/health/protection-without-a-vaccine.html

Researchers had figured out how to load genes into viruses and persuade them to invade cells, and it occurred to Dr. Johnson that he might be able to use this strategy to introduce the gene for a powerful antibody into a patient’s cells.

After the cells began producing antibodies, the patient in effect would be “vaccinated” against a disease.

The idea represented a radical new direction for gene therapy. Until then, researchers had focused on curing genetic disorders by providing working versions of defective genes. I.G.T., on the other hand, would protect healthy people from infectious diseases.

And there was no guarantee that it would succeed. For one thing, the best virus Dr. Johnson had for delivering genes worked only to invade muscle cells — which normally would never make antibodies.

Now, if we substitute “antibodies” with “antigens”, virologists essentially have a man-made virus, haven’t they?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 316
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

People who peddle junk often mix in a little truth to sell it.

Certainly as an avid supporter of vaccines, I would not be the first in the queue to get one.

I can't find the right thread for this, so this will have to do for the time being:

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member

People do have a choice after all, according to Bill Gates.

Will I take a shot?

Only after Mr Gates, Dr Fauci and the rest of top executives of BigPharma be the first to take the vaccine in a publicly televised ceremony. Then after enough time to develop immunity has passed, they should expose themselves to the virus and show the vaccine works.

With such foolproof evidence of vaccine’s safety and effectiveness, it would be hard for anybody to deny themselves the clear benefits of the Covid vaccine.

https://www.rt.com/usa/493068-gates-vaccine-consent-coronavirus/

Boasting that “the logistics in the US are not an issue at all,” Gates bragged that “we can get this thing out there” before acknowledging that “you’ll have a ‘choice’ whether you take the vaccine or not, so there’s that final hurdle.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
32 minutes ago, justAnothermuslim said:

Only after Mr Gates, Dr Fauci and the rest of top executives of BigPharma be the first to take the vaccine in a publicly televised ceremony. Then after enough time to develop immunity has passed, they should expose themselves to the virus and show the vaccine works.

Certainly as an avid supporter of vaccines, I would not be the first in the queue to get one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

In the grand scheme of things, we are nobody special. if we are being spied on, it's because we are either criminals, terrorists or pose a threat to national security. Last time, I checked I'm none of the above.

Or you could also be someone they don't like and they could silence you from saying or knowing too much. This could be anyone. Even if you are none of theses it still is not a confortable thought to have these untrustworthy organisations do this to your body. Privacy just straight up dissapears.

Quote

To pose a couple of question to your question: Why do some of us assume we are experts in vaccine research, when in reality, we are only informed about the ingredients in the vaccine. Is that just as dangerous as blindly trusting medical companies. Being informed about the ingredients is not the same as understanding what the ingredients do.

Secondly, why is it that the antivaccine activists aren't medical students or doctors themselves. You would think that the medical community would sound the alarm on dangerous material being injected into people? The fact that this information is spread on social media by so-called "troll farms "should be cause for alarm. What if this is politically motivated?  We don't even know where the trolls get their information from and if they do present information, it is clear that they misunderstood or misinterpreted the data.

I never told you to be an expert in vaccine ingrediants nor did I get my thoughts from some internet trolls, all I did was use my reasoning to ask you to check which vaccine company has a history of being associated with shady individuals or shady groups, it should be common sense, you don't go to a doctor that has a shady history behind them, you go to a trustworthy one that is known to be good.

If a vaccine company is associated with bill gates for example who is known for his population control agenda where he publicly states how he wants abortions in africa to be common to "help them" for example them no I don't want any of it, if a vaccine company is known to be associated with good people or atleast with the least shady individuals then I am taking the vaccine but I will wait so other people take it to see if the vaccine was rushed or no.

Let's say you don't beleive in any of this, ok, but in islam you should do the lesser of tow evils, you should be taking vaccines from the lesser evil company so they can make money and not the more evil one, for example when I buy food , I don't buy from nestley because I know the evil they commit, I buy from local companies as I have the ability and I can support my country this way.

 You also tell me that the medical community could sound an alarm, when it is pretty easy to keep the medical community in the dark about a lot of things and thoses who do know are never going to speak out because they risk ending up like edward snowdin, etc. 

Edited by HusseinAbbas
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, HusseinAbbas said:

Or you could also be someone they don't like and they could silence you from saying or knowing too much

I think assassination takes care of this quite effectively.

Edited by starlight
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, starlight said:

I think assassination takes care of this quiet effectively.

Microbots killing you from the inside is more usefull as you don't need to send anyone to find the person and you can just label it a "heart attack" or a "cancer tumor" or a "stroke" you get the point.  Assasinations attempts dont always work and people can find out pretty quickly why they died.

Edited by HusseinAbbas
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
3 minutes ago, HusseinAbbas said:

Microbots killing you from the inside is more usefull as you don't need to send anyone to find the person and you can just label it a "heart attack" or a "cancer tumor" or a "stroke" you get the point.  Assasinations attempts dont always work and people can find out pretty quickly why they died.

Wait years for cancer or coronary artery disease to kill someone? Not my cup of tea :p 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, starlight said:

Wait years for cancer or coronary artery disease to kill someone? Not my cup of tea :p 

No, immediate death, you can dammage organs like the heart or brain, stop blood flow in important areas, they could hijack the immune system the same ways some viruses do, they can have a toxin stored inside of the bots which give heart attacks, if you think that's impossible, in the 1960s the CIA made a heart attack gun which shot an extreemly small ice particle into someones body, this ice partcle contained a strong toxin which when the ice melted after a certain time, the toxin was released and gave the victim a heart attack.

Also when the ice particle hit the victim the victim felt an itch, it was unoiticable if the shooter was not seen, but the gun was banned as people caught on.

 

So the toxin part is entierly possible.

Edited by HusseinAbbas
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Development Team
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, HusseinAbbas said:

Microbots killing you from the inside is more usefull as you don't need to send anyone to find the person and you can just label it a "heart attack" or a "cancer tumor" or a "stroke" you get the point.  Assasinations attempts dont always work and people can find out pretty quickly why they died.

Since we are now on the topic of effectively silencing people, a bullet from a sniper rifle is cleaner and more effective than simply waiting 30 or 40 years for someone die "naturally " from a "vaccine", just ask the people who assassinated Benazir Bhutto. 

Again, assassination by nanobots and microbots is still in the realm of science fiction, I pity anyone who thinks otherwise.

Edited by Gaius I. Caesar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

Since we are now on the topic of effectively silencing people, a bullet from a sniper rifle is cleaner and more effective than simply waiting 30 or 40 years for someone die "naturally " from a "vaccine", just ask the people who assassinated Benazir Bhutto. 

Again, assassination by nanobots and microbots is still in the realm of science fiction, I pity anyone who thinks otherwise.

I just mentionned on top how they can kill quickly and I also mentionned ways which they can kill which are not really science fiction, I even gave a real life example of the heart attack gun made 60 years ago that could kill you fast with darts that were extreemly small, again read what I put on top.

Mind you this was 60 years ago, this is defently not science fiction when there is toxins that are extreemly potent at extreemly small scales that can kill multiple elephants, this is defently not the realm of science fiction, you could litteraly make a microbots store a toxin inside , with a click of a button or with a set of commands, it releases the poison in the bloodstream and kills the person.

I can litterally see how easy this can be made and Im just second year in pc networking in college.

 

Might have been dumb to include the cancer tumor part which takes years but I showed other examples where they could just do it quickly.

 

Anyways we can go on and on about this and it wont end,which is why I wont even podt about this anymore, it's just a waste of time at this point, my message is simple nothing harmfull, just trust trustworthy companies and not ones with a bad rep that is ofcourse if you can.

Edited by HusseinAbbas
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Development Team
38 minutes ago, HusseinAbbas said:

this is defently not the realm of science fiction, you could litteraly make a microbots store a toxin inside , with a click of a button or with a set of commands, it releases the poison in the bloodstream and kills the person.

Fair point, have there ever been examples of this scenario?  The only thing that I can think of as a real life is Firqat el Nemr or "the Tiger Squad " from Saudi Arabia, but that's not exactly nanobots but HIV being injected into people. Then again, this came from an unnamed source. So, the credibility is questionable at best.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

Fair point, have there ever been examples of this scenario?  The only thing that I can think of as a real life is Firqat el Nemr or "the Tiger Squad " from Saudi Arabia, but that's not exactly nanobots but HIV being injected into people. Then again, this came from an unnamed source. So, the credibility is questionable at best.

Not that I know for sure, but I heard of a scientist working for the CIA who in 2003 exposed them for injecting people who work for the CIA with something that would kill them if they deviated, but more research has to be done, the story might also be a bit diffirent from what I said as this is from memory, heard it from a youtube channel some time ago so I dont expect to find it.

 

Now theoretically this is possible as all you need is a container for the poison with a close and open mechanism, some sort of wirless device with location tracking, maybe an inbuilt system so the microbot navigates but I dont see it as necessary as the bot only needs to release the toxin in the blood, A database will be usefull to track the microbots with ID maybe a certain group of microbots will have a specified ID, etc

 

Now the reason why I say microbots is because it is hard to put tech on nanobots especially with multiple devices which is why I am proposing a microbot as they are bigger then nanobots but also are extreemly small , they can range from the thickness of a paper to the size of a single bacterium, I believe it would be inbetween that the microbots would be in size.

Just to put it in perspective the smallest KNOWN computer(not simple system) developped by IBM is 0.3mm or 1mm it can fit on a grain of salt and it has a complex system where it can analyse, recieve data, act on the data,etc  If I remebered it is powered by solar power and it had the same computing power as the x86 IBM chip that was in their 1990s PCs.

The only obstacle I really see is power and how they can power that thing inside of a human body, but again a thing this small requires little power.

Edited by HusseinAbbas
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

Fair point, have there ever been examples of this scenario?  The only thing that I can think of as a real life is Firqat el Nemr or "the Tiger Squad " from Saudi Arabia, but that's not exactly nanobots but HIV being injected into people. Then again, this came from an unnamed source. So, the credibility is questionable at best.

Update, I remeber now, It is a radio interview that took place in 2003 between David Icke and James Whales where one of them mentionned(no idea who was talking) that in 1997 he spoke to someone who refused to work for the CIA, he realised that a lot of scientists who thought they served their country at first by joining the CIA , later worked against their wills for the CIA when it was too late, because they were injected with a drug which they called the patchies, this drug orange and gold in colour had to be replaced every 72 hours or the scientists would die which is why they needed to comply with the CIA or else they would die.

Now the guy who talked to the radio correspondant warned against the microship(implants), althought not microbots, they made a good point where governements could try to convince the population to accept implants in vaccines to "help against diseases" but in reality it would be to track them and do all sorts of things, but that could fail with mass protests which is why I could see govt going for plan B which is microbots which the general public will be unaware of.

 

From what i gather david seems to beleive in some crazy theories but the part I quoted was a recording taken by a youtuber which I watched, so as for his overall beleifs he has some mad theories which seem out there, just as a caution.

Edited by HusseinAbbas
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Development Team
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, HusseinAbbas said:

From what i gather david seems to beleive in some crazy theories but the part I quoted was a recording taken by a youtuber which I watched, so as for his overall beleifs he has some mad theories which seem out there, just as a caution.

As a precaution, I wouldn't believe in anything he says because I remember reading a hadith saying believing in an exaggerator was/is a sin. Which can also apply to the anti-vaccine theories as well. We are in a pandemic, how irresponsible is it to make up things about a vaccine that hasn't come yet?

Also David Icke's ideas come from  Zechariah Sitchin, a known Zionist and I find that especially ironic because Icke is also an anti-Semite. I don't know why anyone would want to waste their time with a hypocrite and potentially be exposed to Zionist propaganda.

Edited by Gaius I. Caesar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

As a precaution, I wouldn't believe in anything he says because I remember reading a hadith saying believing in an exaggerator was/is a sin. Which can also apply to the anti-vaccine theories as well. We are in a pandemic, how irresponsible is it to make up things about a vaccine that hasn't come yet?

Also David Icke's ideas come from  Zechariah Sitchin, a known Zionist and I find that especially ironic because Icke is also an anti-Semite. I don't know why anyone would want to waste their time with a hypocrite and potentially be exposed to Zionist propaganda.

Which is why I gave a precaution at the end, he seemed like a nutjob when I looked at his other stuff.

His story about the CIA might be real might bw false, that's only what I heard because you asked me to tell if I heard of some similar thing.

All I did was give arguments as to how nanobots , microbots could be in vaccines, why that could be the case and then asked people to be carefull with which vaccine company they are taking the vaccine, even without microbot argument people should atleast take the vaccine from the least evil of tow companies, we should do that every day, this is not an antivax argument but a precaution for people to take against companies that have a bad rep.

Edited by HusseinAbbas
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@hasanhh

I am just a layman. However, I read and try to understand those who know. So take this with a pinch of salt.

let’s say originally, Virus-A produces antigen-A.

Using the gene-editing technology known as CRISPR-cas9 , a virologist can insert DNA blueprints for antibodies into Virus-A so that the infected cells will produce antibody-B. This has been done.

Using the same technique, a virologist can insert DNA blueprint for antigen-X into Virus-A, thus essentially creating a new virus-X.

The sky’s the limit, according to the print, which is a bit scary to me since it can be abused for nefarious goal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)

@Liggel , @starlight and whomever else may know.

Cleaning out some old papers l came across a nearly 20 year-old document on FMD (Foot and Mouth Disease).

FMD is a RNA virus and although there is no vaccine (at least by then) successful treatments and disease management involved not only virus bits but also bacteria that stimulated the required immune responses.

So my question is: Do you know of any bacteriological studies to stimulate immunity or T-cell responses with C0VlD-19

(T-cell was referred to in the document)

Edited by hasanhh
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
15 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Do you know of any bacteriological studies to stimulate immunity or T-cell responses with C0VlD-19

I haven't come across any.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 4/28/2020 at 9:00 PM, AkhiraisReal said:

You have to understand that there is a battle between the pharma companies and the opposition. There's lots of money on the stake, and probably a lot of other things in stake as well that we are not aware of.

Had to go to page 4 to find the appropriate post you made for this. This does conform to one of your arguments (word used in the academic sense).

https://www.dw.com/en/is-compulsory-licensing-of-remdesivir-a-feasible-option/a-54103280

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

"Microchip Enables Electronic Gene lnjection", IEEE Spectrum, February 2008

"A new method of inserting genes into brain cells . . . us(ing) an array of electrodes, each 100 micrometers wide, to inject . . . into individual neurons. . . . Doing this in the brain would be particularly challenging, mainly because very little is known about how networks of neurons function or how to safely alter the components of such a network."

"Generally, genetic engineers start by injecting into a target region a virus that has been modified to include human genes. ln a technique called transfection . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

If what’s being said by RFK Jr is true, I will certainly take a step back and reevaluate my current understanding of vaccine safety.

His challenge: "Show him one study that says vaccinated children are healthier than unvaccinated children, then he will put that study on his website and he will quit his job".

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/rfk-jr-discusses-vaccines-on-yahoo-finances-influencers-with-andy-serwer/

ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.: I’ve already said to them what I’ve going to say to them, which I’ve written and is published on our website. What I say is people say there’s this huge body of science. What the science consists of is a handful, a tiny handful of epidemiological studies that were written by industry and by the CDC, which is part of the industry. And none of those studies do– all of them are fatally flawed, and I can go through each one with you. And none of those studies do what you would want a study, that you wanted to exculpate vaccines, actually do, which is to compare a vaccinated population to an unvaccinated population and look at the health outcomes.

ANDY SERWER: But how is that possible? Do you really believe, Robert, that out of all the 72 vaccines that you say are out there, that they’re all unsafe? Is that really– it doesn’t seem logical.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.: I don’t think anybody can say that they’re safe because they’ve never been, they’ve never been safety tested. And the reason they’re not safety tested and the reason they have an exemption– every other medicine is tested against a placebo, usually for five years in double blind tests, which means you give a blue pill to 10,000 people, an identical blue pill to 10,000 similarly situated people, and then you look at health outcomes.

Every other medicine, every other medical device has to go through that test. The only one that is permanently exempt from that is vaccines. And the reason that, it’s an artifact of the CDC’s legacy is the Public Health Service, which was a quasi-military agency, which is why people at CDC have military ranks. The vaccine program which was initially implemented as a national security defense against biological attacks on our country.

So they– people who were running it wanted to be able to get a vaccine to market very quickly to deploy it to 100 million Americans without regulatory impediments. So they said, we’re not going to call it medicine, because then we’d have to test it. We’re going to call it biologics, and we’re exempted from testing. And that’s why no vaccine has ever been safety tested.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Forum Administrators
Quote

The Trump administration is considering bypassing normal US regulatory standards to fast-track an experimental coronavirus vaccine from the UK for use in America ahead of the presidential election, according to three people briefed on the plan.

https://www.ft.com/content/b053f55b-2a8b-436c-8154-0e93dcdb3c1a

 

I'd be happy to wait a while to see how the extended trials work out. It would be interesting to see whether volunteers are doing so because of the wider good or because they feel forced because of the nature of their job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • Veteran Member
On 8/24/2020 at 11:10 AM, Haji 2003 said:

 

I'd be happy to wait a while to see how the extended trials work out. It would be interesting to see whether volunteers are doing so because of the wider good or because they feel forced because of the nature of their job.

Sputnik V

Reuters is also reporting that lRl and Russia are discussing joint production.

7-8minute read:

https://undark.org/2020/09/24/russia-sputnik-vaccine-stunt

This article is posted into response to Russia now beginning production.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

@starlight and for SC info:

On DeutscheWelle the report was each country is developing a priority list for who gets the C-19 vaccine first when fielded.

The reporter said that children are at the bottom of the list because they are the least affected anbecause vaccines need to be tailored to children.

My question: Why and How.     Shukran.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Veteran Member

Pfiser and Bio-N-Tech

43,538 participants in testing; 94 tested positive for C-l9 [ADDED: PBS News Hour reported that 'almost all of these (94)" had recieved the placebo]

Received 2 injections

"90%" effective but it is not certain that an innoculated person could not transmit the virus --BBC

Compared to 2018-2019 flu vaccine --39% effective (cited by NYPost)

The British gov't has ordered 100million doses of the Astrazenica injectables as it will recieve only 4million doses of the Pfiser-BioNTech in the initial distribution.

Edited by hasanhh
Added
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

D614G virus is one mutation of the original SARS-CoV-2.

Spreads more rapidly.

More "efficient" in infecting cells, the "D" was the original protein and the "G" is what replaced it.

Does not appear to affect the efficacy of current vaccine developments.

https://scitechdaily.com/common-coronavirus-mutation-may-actually-make-covid-19-more-susceptible-to-a-vaccine/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Moderna, lnc has a 94.5% effective in Phase3 trials. Yet to be peer-reviewed. This is also a mRNA vaccine like Pfiser's, a new methodology for inoculation.

A discussion:  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/16/moderna-coronavirus-vaccine-effective-436776

ADDED: According to France24 there are "10 other vaccines" in Phase 3.

 

Edited by hasanhh
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...