🧵 Why were mostly novel genetic vaccines used in the pandemic?
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 17:31:53 UTC No. 16245940
Can someone explain to me why weren't there more traditional and subunit vaccines avaliable during the pandemic?
How is 20 year old tech (mrna) and 40 year old tech (viral vector) cheaper and easier to develope and make than 200 year old traditional vaccine technology? Sounds like complete bullshit desu.
And whats up with this government disinfo campaign against sinovac, chinese traditional vaccine?
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 17:38:57 UTC No. 16245955
What pandemic?
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 17:52:18 UTC No. 16245979
>>16245940
>why weren't there more traditional and subunit vaccines avaliable during the pandemic?
mRNA vaccines were favored because they could be developed quickly, just by knowing the virus's genetic sequence, and showed high effectiveness. They were easier to scale up in production compared to traditional vaccines that require growing the virus. Plus, mRNA vaccines could be updated fast to tackle new variants. But traditional vaccines also contributed significantly to the global vaccination effort.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 17:59:11 UTC No. 16245996
>>16245979
Bot tier response.
How can vaccine technology based off of gene therapy tech be developed quicker than something that doesn't even need industrial technology to be made? What is so hard about killing a virus with chemicals?
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:06:17 UTC No. 16246006
>>16245940
Jonas Salk wrote a book called "Survival of the Wisest" in 1973 where he lays out very clearly that the plan should be to use viruses and vaccines to insert heritable genetics into the population to control the population.
So guess what they are doing. And guess if he thinks you are wise.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:07:17 UTC No. 16246008
>>16245979
>>16245996
The future of AI is just this guy regurgitating the party line for eternity.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:11:54 UTC No. 16246015
>>16246006
Checked early life of author, every single time.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:34:27 UTC No. 16246040
>>16245940
>>16245940
Kill yourself frogposter
>Why wasn't traditional available
Sinovac WAS the most widely available and used, at 2.5 billion doses
Your other shit goes to /int/ or /pol/
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:37:04 UTC No. 16246043
>>16246040
People that got the vaxx are so constantly seething and butthurt it's hilarious.
I'm surprised you can even stomach being here. It's actually commendable.
But try not to ooze "seething" the entire time.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:37:18 UTC No. 16246044
>>16245940
Prove there was a pandemic that affected humans.
Those people were NHI disguised as humans. Covid was a first strike.
We took out a lot of them.
Not sure what the plan is for the stragglers.
Anyway, this is all super classified, but Covid was specifically killing people who have specific markers that indicate non-human activity.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:39:47 UTC No. 16246049
>>16246040
Sinovac wasn't avaliable in most western countries.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:41:29 UTC No. 16246050
>>16246044
>we
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:44:41 UTC No. 16246057
>>16246040
>>16246049
And I am just genuinely wondering the reasoning behind it because what they did was shady af.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 19:03:34 UTC No. 16246076
>>16246057
I know "normal" people aren't supposed to believe wild explanations. But is it wild that the greatest name in vaccines of all time literally says to use vaccines to control population?
Read the book posted above in pdf form if you really want to know.
If you don't, you don't really want to know.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 19:17:31 UTC No. 16246099
>>16246076
will look into it. Most vaccines might be useless but I do believe few of them are important.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 19:40:15 UTC No. 16246129
>>16246099
Which few? Tetanus and Rabies. Both effective POST incident.
Really nothing else imo.
But they are engineering you with vaccines if you get them. Simple as.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 20:18:38 UTC No. 16246180
>>16246129
Stuff like that, yeah
How are they engineering people with a dead virus?
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 20:22:20 UTC No. 16246185
The seventh booster was approved so if you haven't had nine doses of the science juice, you're an anti-vaxxer. Seems to be quite a few of them now.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 20:42:30 UTC No. 16246203
>>16246185
>implying 9 is enough
Anything less than 20 doses is anti semetism
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 20:48:48 UTC No. 16246207
>>16246180
>dead virus
Firstly you have absolutely no idea what is in the vial.
Secondly MRNA is the culmination is not a dead virus.
Thirdly, most damage thus far has been done by adjuvants that cause auto immune disease amount other things simply weakening people.
The main point is that viruses create heritable traits and that is their goal. If you want to help get them there, by all means, take vaccines.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 20:56:23 UTC No. 16246217
>>16245996
>What is so hard about killing a virus with chemicals?
Anon, it's me again. That's not how vaccines work, and you asked about vaccines, not antivirals.
Reading a virus' DNA strand is a fast process. It was done soon after the virus was discovered. mRNA vaccines had already been pioneered with the Zika virus vaccine. I'm not a specialist in the matter, but it seems it was a fairly 'simple' transition to adapt what was already know about those types of vaccines then to the novel virus and develop a novel vaccine. From what I read, replicating the said vaccine and its delivery means is also faster and simpler than disabling a virus and replicating that disabled virus.
That's it, it's what's written, and if you want deep technical answers, someone else who is a specilist will have to step in, or you have to dig for the answer yourself and stop being a lazy bitch, FFS.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 20:58:41 UTC No. 16246220
>>16246044
>Prove there was a pandemic that affected humans.
This is literslly schidzo level paranoia/skepticism. Who abused you, anon? Such betrayal, you must have endured. So sorry.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 21:21:32 UTC No. 16246250
>>16246217
The main issue is that these "vaccines" (they aren't) using MODIFIEDRNA. MODeRNA.
It's not messenger RNA.
They sell it because a description such as yours makes sense and seems reasonable.
But mRNA (real) degrades quickly and can't be used on a mass scale. So they MODIFY the RNA and and it becomes overly stable for it's purpose.
They kick out "junk" (as in the don't know what it's for) and replace entire codons.
So it's simply not actual mRNA.
It's a creation that uses the mechanism of mRNA.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 21:22:32 UTC No. 16246253
>>16246220
So you can't prove it.
All the deaths happened after the experimental gene therapy.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 21:58:17 UTC No. 16246302
>>16246250
who cares. It doesn't invalidate these points:
>>16245979
>>16246217
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:03:10 UTC No. 16246311
>>16246253
>So you can't prove it.
What is proof for you? Do you want to assemble your own electron microscope at home, collect your own samples and look at it yourself with your own eyes? Are you going to do your own DNA reading of the virus once you find them? Are you then going to run your own infection/contagion tests, and attempt to quantify the severity of the symptoms on a large set of people? All the time also risking greeting infected and sick yourself, just because you are skeptical? And can you even afford all of that, assuming you even have the know-how on how to do it all yourself, mr DIY skeptic?
Grow up.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:18:10 UTC No. 16246329
>>16245940
>>16245979
>>16245996
Completely different Anon coming into this conversation with some additional context:
"In comments to Science published on March 23, 2023, GISAID's vice-president Ben Branda specified that two of three SARS-CoV-2 genomes that GISAID had received from the Chinese CDC were published at 00:41 and 00:44 (all times in UTC/GMT) on Jan 10, 2020, and the third followed at 01:01 on Jan 11, 2020." - Source: "First shared SARS-CoV-2 genome: GISAID vs virological.org" , National Library of Medicine.
The Chinese CDC """""""""conveniently"""""""""" had documented, publicized, and shared, several genomes of the disease that really sped up the process.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:26:15 UTC No. 16246341
Because they needed dna modification in order to suppress the immune system in particular macrophages in order to not phagocitate the self replicating nanotechnology. It's a transmitter receiver system that through 5g is ushering in the hivemind collective, it's 50% completed, by 2030 the vaxxies will be fully connected to the hivemind
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:30:27 UTC No. 16246348
>>16246311
>Do you want to assemble your own electron microscope at home, collect your own samples and look at it yourself with your own eyes? Are you going to do your own DNA reading of the virus once you find them? Are you then going to run your own infection/contagion tests, and attempt to quantify the severity of the symptoms on a large set of people?
They could do literally all of this and they would still refuse to believe the results, because the results would disagree with their dogma.
If you gave an anti-vaxxer an electron microscope and samples of various viruses to look at with it, they would conclude that the electron microscope is a demonic Jewish device that's using CGI, deepfakes, and the power of satanic adrenochrome to make them think viruses are real.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 00:25:41 UTC No. 16246520
>>16246348
Your dogma is literally equivalent to any religion, except you accept testimony of sciggers who get paid to rip off taxpayers. Sorry sweetie.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 06:22:10 UTC No. 16246984
>>16246338
Hiv could be asymptomatic for 10-15 years.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 06:25:34 UTC No. 16246988
>>16246217
>>16246217
China made an inactivated vaccine quick so why didn’t western governments do the same? The government already started losing public trust for decades so why lose a lot more of it instead of making and releasing mostly inactivated and subunit vaccines instead? Almost all controversy could have been avoided while keeping a lot more public trust.
Best case scenario is that the government is retarded rather than malicious.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 06:27:54 UTC No. 16246990
>>16246984
>10-15 years
kek
Also you do know that HIV is easily treatable with modern medicines, right? It hasn't been a death sentence in 20 years.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 06:35:00 UTC No. 16246998
>>16246990
Except hiv is still incurable and patients have to take medications for the rest of their lives. I would rather die than to be dependent on big pharma.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 07:17:43 UTC No. 16247039
>>16246988
>China made an inactivated vaccine quick so why didn’t western governments do the same?
For the reasons already given to you above:
>>16245979
>>16246217
Other governments did not have the know-how to do mRNA vaccines, apparently.
FFS, the pandemic was in 2020, it's been four years, vaccination isn't mandatory anymore, why are you obsessing over this still? Why the fuck are you so terrified? Rent-free, think about it.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 07:34:28 UTC No. 16247056
>>16247039
Go back to redd1t please. I am not going to forget the government coercing the public to take something that works like gene therapy or even could be considered gene therapy.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:51:17 UTC No. 16247132
>>16247056
>Go back to redd1t please
You can't just shut down a discussion because you don't like the facts.
>the government coercing
Which one? There's nearly 200 governments out there.
My government didn't force anyone to get vaccinated, for example, it just asked people to do so of their own free will. I myself waited for a long time before taking the vaccine myself, I wanted to see what came of the first rounds of vaccination to see if any major problems would come about.
>that works like gene therapy
Definitions are important: nRNA is "genetic therapy". "gene therapy" alters the actual genome or the function of genes, which mRNA vaccines do not do, and it is therefore a subset category of "genetic therapy".
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:57:29 UTC No. 16247141
>>16245940
>mRNA vaccines are plug and play so they came out before "trad" vaccines
>but they knew it was inflammatory
>there is an article about mRNA being inflammatory from 2017
>trump was mad that the libs mocked him for vaccines causing autism so they approved inflammatory vaccines to own the libs
>trump would have been attacked if he didn't approve mRNA
>and covid itself is inflammatory too so vaccinating against it is also inflammatory...non-mRNA vaccines had the same problem but probably safer in the long run
>biden and team didn't do anything to stop it because they are true believers in whatever big pharma tells them
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:03:07 UTC No. 16247145
>>16247132
You can't just make shit up because you don't like the facts. Moderna refers to its mRNA probuct as gene therapy. It is recommended they be considered gene therapy:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar
The reclassification of drugs as vaccines or medications do not change their methods of actions. Branding a drug a vaccine does not change it from gene therapy.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:05:35 UTC No. 16247148
Wouldn't it be funny if mRNA cures cancer but also causes cancer? I bet that's how things turn out.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:10:36 UTC No. 16247155
>>16247145
>Moderna refers to its mRNA probuct as gene therapy.
Ironically, In January 2024, Moderna and BioNTech representatives met with members of the European Parliament to discuss the classification of mRNA vaccines, arguing that they should NOT be classified as gene therapy products.
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/a
Okay, one opinion in a sea of opinions. I disagree, what can I say.
"Gene Therapy" and "Genetic Therapy" are not the same thing, that much should be obvious, one is nested within the other: Genetic Therapy deals with any type of medical research involving any type genetic strands or sequences, and not genes specifically.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:21:36 UTC No. 16247164
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:23:41 UTC No. 16247165
>>16247164
1) mRnA vaccines do not use adenoviruses
2) mRNA vaccines do not inject their mRNA into the nucleus.
3) the mRNA vaccine strand do not affect genes or their functions/expression in the nuclear DNA
Do you understand the difference or not?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:26:39 UTC No. 16247168
>>16247165
So are viral vector vaccines which I mentioned in my post like j&j and astrazeneca gene therapies while mRNA lnp isn’t? This is exactly how they work. Hundreds of millions took that too.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:35:32 UTC No. 16247173
>>16247165
>>16247168
Got you there, didn't I?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:42:30 UTC No. 16247178
>>16247168
>So are viral vector vaccines which I mentioned in my post like j&j
Sorry, just came into the thread and there's already quite a bit above, can you point to the specific post, please?
>while mRNA lnp isn’t?
The two covid mRNA vaccines developed by Moderna and Pfizer do not use viral vectors, no. Instead, they use lipid "bubbles", liquid nanoparticles (LNP).
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:43:30 UTC No. 16247180
>>16247173
>Got you there, didn't I?
Well, I'm in some five threads at once, so I can't be chit-chatting with you in real-time.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:50:05 UTC No. 16247184
>>16247155
I don't even know why these boogaloo niggers are still shilling this weak line against gene therapy. It wasn't an opinion piece. They examined the definitions provided by the FDA, WHO, and such health regulatory agencies. Your argument is pathetic.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:52:22 UTC No. 16247189
>>16247178
>How is 20 year old tech (mrna) and 40 year old tech (viral vector) cheaper and easier to develope and make than 200 year old traditional vaccine technology? Sounds like complete bullshit desu.
>And whats up with this government disinfo campaign against sinovac, chinese traditional vaccine?
>40 year old tech (viral vector)
That does not change the fact that many took viral vector vaccines and pretty sure I can find public information that would suggest mrna lnp could be considered gene therapy as well.
Have you even researched how they work? Are you vaxxed and in denial?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:56:14 UTC No. 16247191
>>16247184
The OP's question was already answered, this discussion about viral vectors and what not is already very off-topic, but for the sakes of interesting discussion, I'm having it.
For all I said, I can just tell you all to go eat a cock and fuck off, but I rather engage in an interesting discussion instead about a technical definition, one that rests on obvious differences that should be evident to anyone with at least two neurons in there.
The thread topic is over, and you don't have to be here. Go away, come on.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:59:24 UTC No. 16247193
>>16247178
>So are viral vector vaccines which I mentioned in my post like j&j
Where, where did you mention and identify the specific viral vector vaccines so that I can go and verify which specific vaccines you're referring to?
>and 40 year old tech (viral vector)
vague, give the specific viral vector vaccines that you are referring to
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:00:21 UTC No. 16247195
>>16247191
Oy vey, shut it down
Gas yourself
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:01:58 UTC No. 16247199
>>16247193
I just mentioned viral vectors in my original post, thats what I meant but still doesn’t change the fact that viral vector ”vaccines” work exactly as viral vector gene therapies
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:02:11 UTC No. 16247200
>>16247193
You must be referring to Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) , AstraZeneca COVID-19, Ervebo, or maybe even Imlygic?
Well, it was responded to here:
>>16246217
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:03:29 UTC No. 16247201
>>16247193
Viral vector gene therapy and “vaccine” tech was invented in 80s.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:04:12 UTC No. 16247204
>>16247199
>work exactly as viral vector gene therapies
What they share in common is the vector system to inject the genetic strand into the cell. What the strand does once inside is what's different between "gene therapy" or not.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:05:32 UTC No. 16247206
>>16247201
>invented in 80s
well, maybe that's yet another reason why these vaccines were cheaper to ramp up to needed production levels?
>>16247200
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:13:43 UTC No. 16247211
>>16247206
Meanwhile mrna lnp is late 90s at most vs 140 year old inactivated
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 10:25:37 UTC No. 16247214
>>16247211
>Meanwhile mrna lnp is late 90s at most vs 140 year old inactivated
okay, but that does not imply that "inactivated" vaccines are automatically cheaper or easier to produce, right?
I'm not calling mRNA vaccines such a term, but there's a reason why novel technologies are disruptive, they change things. That's what new technological application do, they change paradigms.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 11:49:23 UTC No. 16247277
>>16245955
the one we're currently in
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 11:52:16 UTC No. 16247278
>>16247277
Pandemic ended 2 years ago. Where have you been?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 12:38:42 UTC No. 16247321
>>16247278
it was never declared officially over, covid is still killing and disabling people
https://www.ineteconomics.org/persp