Does the shot mess with your DNA?

[Floor_Nurse]

The way that this Covid vaccine works is quite different from the flu shot. The Covid vax. is not a (dead) bacteria or virus being injected into your body. (With Pfizer & Moderna) RNA (called messenger RNA) that's been coded in a lab goes into your arm. The RNA has instructions, or a code, that gets deposited on the cell. The ribosomes of the cell make a spike protein. It looks similar to the spike protein on the surface of the actual Corona virus. Then your body is supposed to make antibodies (antigens) that goes after the spike protein and neutralize it. 

The problem is that this has not been tested in any long-term studies, so, this is more of an experiment. We don't know whether or not the DNA gets permanently changed (possibly bad). We're talking about something that's not supposed to be in your body (made in a lab) that can bind to the surface of your cells and possibly may not be able to be reversed. 

Also, since the drug is still being evaluated for long term adverse effects, pregnancy, etc., the FDA would not license the drug, but instead, put out as EUA... Emergency Use Authorization.

[mdcp]

42 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Which means that you are not qualified to extrapolate results that are not proven out by the science at this time. 

Sorry actually misspoke but you would know that if you watched the video. 
 

[hppygr8ful, ASN, RN, EMT-I]

7 hours ago, mdcp said:

Ivermectin 

they are using it all over the world. Here is some of the data, trials and research ....

https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/videos-and-tutorials-on-ivermectin/

 

 

We use Ivermectin to kill worms in horses and cows!

[toomuchbaloney]

5 hours ago, HRoark64 said:

There it is...'the science.'  Link it, please.  And nothing funded by a pharmaceutical company.  Generally unwise to let foxes guard the chicken coop.

LOL

That's rich, someone chasing pseudoscience nonsense demanding a scientific citation.  

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

15 hours ago, mdcp said:

Sorry actually misspoke but you would know that if you watched the video. 
 

Did you actually look at the studies?  Tiny little groups under poorly controlled conditions.  This group of researchers opposes RCT's.  Does that say nothing to you?  Even if we were in a world that have no vaccine from the evil empire of the pharmaceutical companies, these limited studies would stand as they are.  They do not meet the rigors of research but, instead, might be considered as "starter studies."  If the company that manufactures ivermectin calls it useless why should we not believe that?  Merck & Co. Inc., which manufactures ivermectin for humans under the brand name Stromectol, on Feb. 4 released a statement saying there is “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies,” adding there is “a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.”

[HRoark64, BSN]

42 minutes ago, subee said:

Did you actually look at the studies?  Tiny little groups under poorly controlled conditions.  This group of researchers opposes RCT's.  Does that say nothing to you?  Even if we were in a world that have no vaccine from the evil empire of the pharmaceutical companies, these limited studies would stand as they are.  They do not meet the rigors of research but, instead, might be considered as "starter studies."  If the company that manufactures ivermectin calls it useless why should we not believe that?  Merck & Co. Inc., which manufactures ivermectin for humans under the brand name Stromectol, on Feb. 4 released a statement saying there is “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies,” adding there is “a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.”

As opposed to the concerning lack of long term safety in covid vaccines? 

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

5 minutes ago, HRoark64 said:

As opposed to the concerning lack of long term safety in covid vaccines? 

So we should follow the results of poorly performed research because we don't know the long-term safety records of Covid vaccines?  Is there any logic in this?  I made a weighted decision to take the vaccine based on the facts I could find at the time.  No one could sell me a pill that would make me 5'6' and a size 2 as much as I would wish for that.  But I will take chances with a brand new drug that  was massively researched.  All of the other myriad of dangerous chemicals we were exposed to all of our lives, were massively less-researched.  We drank the Diet Coke, ate chickens with breasts the size of Mae West's, God knows what's in my mattress, hair dye, fertilizers and air-conditioning fluids.  To decide that all of a sudden, I am a virgin again and refuse to sully my body with a vaccine.....that train has already left  I respect your decision for yourself but don't want you on my bus, subway, airport or hospital room and you can still live without doing any of those things.

[subee, MSN, CRNA]

18 hours ago, HRoark64 said:

Wrong on many counts...way to continue the red/blue dialectic that keeps any meaningful debate from happening.  I haven't heard from a single conservative representative or senator lately telling me not to get the vaccine.  Most of what I've heard is a lot of pushback against lockdown and mask policies that make zero sense and can't even pass anecdotal/common sense tests, let alone an actual study.  BTW - don't take that to mean I'm on that side of the aisle.  I spent six years in OIF/OEF observing America from the outside and seeing how the political systems we install to control other populations were perfected in our country first.  Break up with two party tyranny as soon as you can.

Tell me something...why do the states with the most draconian measures have the same or worse infection & mortality rates as the states without them?  How about the countries that didn't enact such measures?  Why hasn't the entire homeless population died from this yet??  They don't wear masks, social distance, or even bathe regularly.  Weird.

Not a forum for gun blathering either.  A person who shoots someone without provocation/justification is called a 'criminal.'  Gun legislation only keeps law abiding citizens from buying/possessing guns - criminals don't typically care about laws...hence their criminal nature.  I expect nothing less of Democrats though, being the party of the Klan, to keep the gun control push alive and well since its original aim was to remove firearms from black communities in the civil rights era.

 

The homeless didn't die because they live outdoors, silly.  As for this isn't a forum for "gun blathering", you did a pretty good job of it:)

[nursej22, MSN, RN]

19 hours ago, MeganMN said:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/10/965940914/covid-19-vaccines-could-add-fuel-to-evolution-of-more-coronavirus-mutations

 

This article speaks to the debate about whether to delay the second dose in order to vaccinate as many as possible. 

"Paul Bieniasz, a Howard Hughes investigator at the Rockefeller University, is particularly concerned this could happen between the time of an initial vaccination and a second shot to maximize the immune response."

It does not say that an mRNA vaccine causes mutations. 

" 'There are really too many unknowns to really be definitive and positive about what the best way forward is, what the most effective way to use the available vaccine doses is,' Bieniasz says. "

Dr. Bieniasz, does not advise avoiding mRNA vaccines. Nor does he theorize that  " a more frightening mutation may occur that will do much more harm than the original, and the vaccine makes this more likely. " , as you posted previously. 

[mdcp]

21 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Which means that you are not qualified to extrapolate results that are not proven out by the science at this time. 

Here the doctor explains at the senate Committee  Hearing.... it’s not just the ivermectin it’s the combo of treatment which most studies that disprove ivermectin are just giving ivermectin ...

https://rumble.com/vfhvhn-tx-doctor-media-censored-covid-treatment-options-could-have-reduced-fatalit.html

 

 

[HRoark64, BSN]

6 minutes ago, mdcp said:

Here the doctor explains at the senate Committee  Hearing.... it’s not just the ivermectin it’s the combo of treatment which most studies that disprove ivermectin are just giving ivermectin ...

https://rumble.com/vfhvhn-tx-doctor-media-censored-covid-treatment-options-could-have-reduced-fatalit.html

 

 

Don’t bother. Anything not cr**ped down their throats by a media conglomerate won’t count as science. Rumble, ***ute, Odysee, or any other decentralized platform definitely won’t cut the mustard. 

[nursej22, MSN, RN]

32 minutes ago, mdcp said:

Here the doctor explains at the senate Committee  Hearing.... it’s not just the ivermectin it’s the combo of treatment which most studies that disprove ivermectin are just giving ivermectin ...

https://rumble.com/vfhvhn-tx-doctor-media-censored-covid-treatment-options-could-have-reduced-fatalit.html

 

 

I tried to watch this, but all I get out of it is McCullough tooting his own horn and how wrong everyone who disagrees with him is. I didn't hear him describing any results from any studies. 

[mdcp]

1 hour ago, nursej22 said:

I tried to watch this, but all I get out of it is McCullough tooting his own horn and how wrong everyone who disagrees with him is. I didn't hear him describing any results from any studies. 

You must have missed it. It’s at the end when they ask questions. About the how the studies done just looked at a singular drug and he goes on to talk about how it’s the combination of drugs ... which he happened to talk about earlier in his speech.