STUDY: The mRNA Shot is Dangerous

Goyboy

Goyboy

Pontif-icator
Contributor

Vaccines’ Are ‘Far More’ Dangerous than Covid, Study Warns​

Notably, the researchers state that it would be more accurate to refer to “mRNA vaccines” as “modified mRNA gene therapies” or “modmRNA” shots.

In the “Abstract” section of the study’s paper, the researchers write:

“The COVID-19 modified mRNA (modmRNA) lipid nanoparticle-based ‘vaccines’ are not classical antigen-based vaccines but instead prodrugs informed by gene therapy technology.”

They found that the modmRNA injections carry such a high risk of dangerous adverse events, that it would be safer to catch the virus without being vaccinated than to take one of the shots.

The study categorizes the principal adverse events associated with the mRNA products with a brief systems-based synopsis of each of the six domains of potential harm:

  1. cardiovascular
  2. neurological
  3. hematologic
  4. immunological
  5. oncological
  6. reproductive
They found that the Covid modmRNA shots dramatically increase the risk of becoming severely ill or dying from potentially fatal conditions such as cancer or heart failure.

slaynews.com

'Vaccines' Are 'Far More' Dangerous than Covid, Study Warns - Slay News

A major new study has finally confirmed that the Covid mRNA vaccines are "far more" dangerous than the virus they are supposed to protect people from.
slaynews.com slaynews.com
 
Not a peer reviewed scientific journal. It is an oasis for quacks. The editor in chief is a LINGUISTICS PhD. Utter nonsense. Again you are too lazy to research your sources.

About the Journal | International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research

ijvtpr.com ijvtpr.com

You need to stop being lazy and making us intelligent people do your homework. There are a dozen red flags in the description of how to submit.

THIS IS NOT A STUDY. Studies have a methodology and results. This is a conspiracy laced opinion piece.
 
They demanded that kids get injected with this stuff, for no rational reason at all re COVID.....maybe this was all about something else.
 
Goyboy said:

Vaccines’ Are ‘Far More’ Dangerous than Covid, Study Warns​

Notably, the researchers state that it would be more accurate to refer to “mRNA vaccines” as “modified mRNA gene therapies” or “modmRNA” shots.

In the “Abstract” section of the study’s paper, the researchers write:

“The COVID-19 modified mRNA (modmRNA) lipid nanoparticle-based ‘vaccines’ are not classical antigen-based vaccines but instead prodrugs informed by gene therapy technology.”

They found that the modmRNA injections carry such a high risk of dangerous adverse events, that it would be safer to catch the virus without being vaccinated than to take one of the shots.

The study categorizes the principal adverse events associated with the mRNA products with a brief systems-based synopsis of each of the six domains of potential harm:

  1. cardiovascular
  2. neurological
  3. hematologic
  4. immunological
  5. oncological
  6. reproductive
They found that the Covid modmRNA shots dramatically increase the risk of becoming severely ill or dying from potentially fatal conditions such as cancer or heart failure.

slaynews.com

'Vaccines' Are 'Far More' Dangerous than Covid, Study Warns - Slay News

A major new study has finally confirmed that the Covid mRNA vaccines are "far more" dangerous than the virus they are supposed to protect people from.
slaynews.com slaynews.com
Click to expand...

Ummm, from what I can gather, the journal this is published in: The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research is an anti-vax outlet. So you might want to look for something that comes from an ESTABLISHED and TRUSTED source of information.

Unless you are just looking to confirm your bias.

Also: the second author there, Dr. Senneff, is a COMPUTER SCIENTIST, not a virologist. Funny but she also is associated with the JOURNAL as well. Funny that. So far it reeks to high heaven.

PLUS: there's like a 0.0000000000% chance that YOU will be able to read the article and find the questionable bits because you are not a virologist yourself. So all you will be doing is finding an ANTIVAX publication publishing an ANTIVAX paper by people not all of whom are actual VIROLOGISTS. In fact most of them (except Ms. Seneff) appear to work at the McCullough Foundation which, if you go on their webpage almost IMMEDIATELY starts going on about the "deep state".

Long story short: FIND BETTER SCIENCE.
 
Obtenebrator said:
Ummm, from what I can gather, the journal this is published in: The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research is an anti-vax outlet. So you might want to look for something that comes from an ESTABLISHED and TRUSTED source of information.

Unless you are just looking to confirm your bias.

Also: the second author there, Dr. Senneff, is a COMPUTER SCIENTIST, not a virologist. Funny but she also is associated with the JOURNAL as well. Funny that. So far it reeks to high heaven.

PLUS: there's like a 0.0000000000% chance that YOU will be able to read the article and find the questionable bits because you are not a virologist yourself. So all you will be doing is finding an ANTIVAX publication publishing an ANTIVAX paper by people not all of whom are actual VIROLOGISTS. In fact most of them (except Ms. Seneff) appear to work at the McCullough Foundation which, if you go on their webpage almost IMMEDIATELY starts going on about the "deep state".

Long story short: FIND BETTER SCIENCE.
Click to expand...
You are a science denier.
 
Goyboy said:
You are a science denier.
Click to expand...

Actually no. I'm a scientist. Normally I wouldn't go immediately for questioning the nature of the journal but if the second author is the editor of a journal set up for anti-vaxxers and most of the people don't appear to be virologists I just sort of felt that you might want to choose better.

I'm not a virologist and I know you aren't either. So why go for the most biased and potentially contaminated research just to confirm your bias? Why not go for GOOD science?
 
Obtenebrator said:
Actually no. I'm a scientist. Normally I wouldn't go immediately for questioning the nature of the journal but if the second author is the editor of a journal set up for anti-vaxxers and most of the people don't appear to be virologists I just sort of felt that you might want to choose better.

I'm not a virologist and I know you aren't either. So why go for the most biased and potentially contaminated research just to confirm your bias? Why not go for GOOD science?
Click to expand...
The viologists have been wrong about COVID and the Jabs almost 100% of the time.
 
Concart said:
Not a peer reviewed scientific journal. It is an oasis for quacks. The editor in chief is a LINGUISTICS PhD. Utter nonsense. Again you are too lazy to research your sources.

About the Journal | International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research

ijvtpr.com ijvtpr.com

You need to stop being lazy and making us intelligent people do your homework. There are a dozen red flags in the description of how to submit.

THIS IS NOT A STUDY. Studies have a methodology and results. This is a conspiracy laced opinion piece.
Click to expand...
Any leftist one converses with does not accept anything reported by any alternative media source. They are the perfect subjects for the deep state. Complete automatons. Complete brainwashed.
 
Goyboy said:
Any leftist one converses with does not accept anything reported by any alternative media source. They are the perfect subjects for the deep state. Complete automatons. Complete brainwashed.
Click to expand...

Actually the funny thing is: without proper controls and gatekeepers a lot of bad information could make it out to the public. So, in reality, those of us who actually ARE scientists know that you have to vet the sources of your information. You can't just accept something because it is in print.

You can be forgiven for not knowing the value of peer review having never been a peer reviewer or have your work peer reviewed but it is a valuable and important aspect of how to know where the good science is.

If you like trash, why bother with journals at all? Why not just go ask homeless folks for their opinions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top