Unfortunately, even Twitter and Facebook have limitations to their identification of misinformation and disinformation...this is done because the tweet has been labeled as something that can not be replied to, shared or liked. Simply, no further conversation. Once in awhile I will waste my time and energy to explain why something is misinformation/disinformation but this far into the Pandemic as it traverses into an Endemic...the misinformation/disinformation is now laughable to me because its being spread by ignorant individuals that fell down some rabbit hole. Its sad that someone does not have the ability to look into why the tweet is labeled as misinformation before spreading the misinformation to other social media formats like Elitetrader.com It's ignorant and its intentionally done by someone not in the right mind. ---------- WHAT STEFAN OELRICH REALLY SAID ABOUT BAYER The speech of Stefan Oelrich, therefore, it was focused on new technologies and on the feedback they could have in the population in terms of trust. Hence, the fact that the world has embraced the mRna vaccines could lead the way, according to the executive Bayer, to new technologies in the medical field such as cell and gene therapies, the same that the German multinational has been studying for some time, for example against Parkinson’s disease and sickle cell anemia. Therefore, Oelrich does not claim that mRna Covid vaccines are gene therapy, but that they are an example of what gene or cell therapy can be. Look at the words below very carefully..."for that" versus "of that". He stated...“Ultimately the mRNA vaccines are an example for that cell and gene therapy” He did not state...“Ultimately mRNA vaccines are an example of that cell and gene therapy" A sane person would listen to the entire speech and not try to distort/manipulate a few words or a few sentences into something that was not stated. ---------- Why mRNA vaccines aren’t gene therapies We bust another Covid-19 myth – this time about how mRNA vaccines work – in our latest blog post As people in the UK continue to receive Covid-19 vaccines, the subject of how and why they work is being widely discussed online. Some people are promoting the idea that RNA-based vaccines – including the UK-approved Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines – are a form of gene therapy, but this isn’t accurate. RNA: a closer look RNA is closely related to Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)...the chemical that contains, or ‘encodes’, genetic information. DNA is made up of four different chemical bases known as ‘A’ (adenine), ‘C’ (cytosine), ‘G’ (guanine) and ‘T’ (thymine)...RNA performs different but equally important functions. While our genetic information is stored as DNA in the cell nucleus, RNA acts as an intermediary, allowing the genes to be expressed. When a gene is expressed, it is copied into RNA. This is known as a messenger RNA (mRNA) – the type used in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. The mRNA travels out of the cell nucleus to be used as a template to make a protein. Once the protein is made, the mRNA gets broken down. So how do mRNA vaccines work, exactly? How the vaccines work All of the Covid-19 vaccines approved in the UK work by presenting a single protein that appears on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus – known as the ‘spike protein’ – to the body’s immune system. This allows the body to develop antibodies against the protein, so that if the body encounters the same protein again (notably, when a person is infected with the virus), then the immune system can react much more quickly. This process mimics the way our bodies react to many infections that we would encounter naturally. Although all of the vaccines work by exploiting the spike protein, the way they do so is different. The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is a type of vaccine called a viral vector. It works by using a harmless virus that has been altered to have the SARS-CoV-2 protein on its surface. The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines use a different approach. Instead of the vaccine containing the protein itself, it contains instructions about how to make the protein, so that the cells in our bodies can manufacture it. The mRNA is packaged in a capsule called a lipid nanoparticle, which acts as a delivery vehicle to allow the mRNA to safely enter the cells in the body. From there, the mRNA is treated the same as any other – it is used by the cells as a template to build the protein and is then broken down. After the spike protein is manufactured by the vaccinated cell, it causes an immune response in the same way as traditional vaccines. As mRNAs are broken down by the cell after they have been used, the RNA from the vaccine does not persist in cells. It is helpful to think of the mRNA vaccine has being a one-time set of instructions that the body then ‘forgets’, and this is very different to how gene therapies work. Gene therapies vs mRNA therapies Gene therapies involve making deliberate changes to a patient’s DNA in order to cure or alleviate a Genetic condition that is the result of variants in the genome. This can be by adding a functional copy of a gene, disabling a gene that makes a faulty product or changing gene activation. The mRNA from the vaccines does not enter the cell nucleus or interact with the DNA at all, so it does not constitute gene therapy. Gene therapies can have long-lasting effects because they permanently change the cell’s DNA, with these changes being inherited by any Daughter cells genetically identical cells formed when a cell undergoes division by mitosis...daughter cells that result if the cell divides. In contrast, mRNAs are always transitory and are not inherited by daughter cells, making them ideal for use in vaccines. Although mRNA therapies have been the subject of clinical trials for many years, their role in the fight against Covid-19 has only accelerated interest in their usefulness to combat other conditions, including rare diseases and cancer. https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/blog/why-mrna-vaccines-arent-gene-therapies/ wrbtrader
Huge study finds most COVID-19 vaccine side effects were mild for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-mild-side-effects-moderna-pfizer/9376671002/ A new study involving millions of participants has found most side effects from mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were mild and faded substantially after one day. The findings, published Monday in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, should reassure Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccine recipients that the shots, which were granted U.S. Food and Drug Administration emergency authorization in late 2020, are safe, experts said. "These data are reassuring that reactions to both mRNA vaccines are generally mild and subside after one or two days – confirming reports from clinical trials and post-authorization monitoring," said the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Tom Shimabukuro, one of the authors of the large-scale study. The study looked at data from over 7 million self-reported instances of negative side effects from mRNA vaccine doses administered between December 2020 and June 2021. Researchers found that pain at the site of injection, fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported negative side effects. During the study period, more than 298 million doses of mRNA vaccines were administered nationwide: 132 million Moderna and 167 million Pfizer, according to the study. Researchers said their data suggests 92% of negative side effects were not serious, and less than 1% of people who self-reported side effects reported seeking any medical care following vaccination. The data examined in the study came from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which was established in 1990 and is run by the CDC and the FDA. Data also came from the v-safe system, a similar reporting system managed by the CDC that was developed specifically for the COVID-19 vaccination rollout. “COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring is the most robust in U.S. history, and the two complementary surveillance systems used in this study should bolster confidence that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are safe," said the CDC's Hannah Rosenblum, who helped author the study. Out of all the negative side effects reported via VAERS, 20% were headache, 17% were fatigue, 16% were fever, 16% were chills and 15% were pain, according to the study. The study says about 4,500 deaths were noted, mostly among people 60 and older. Those deaths were reported regardless of any potential association with vaccination, and study authors say that no unusual patterns were detected. The CDC's David Shay, who also helped author the study, explained that data reflects deaths researchers would expect to find when studying an older population. Broadly, the study was not able to suggest cause and effect between vaccination and the adverse events being studied. Authors say that is a constraint of the self-reported surveillance system used to collect data. A release quotes Elizabeth Phillips – of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, who was not involved in the study – who commented that the study showed "no unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects." Data from the v-safe monitoring program showed more people were likely to experience negative side effects after the second vaccine dose compared with to the first.
Two anti-vax clowns - Ryan Cole and Richard Urso -- continue to spread more Covid misinformation. Controversial Doc No Longer With One of Idaho's Largest Health Networks — Ryan Cole, MD, previously came under fire for spreading falsities about COVID vaccines, therapies https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/96143 'America's Frontline Doctors' Continue to Misinform on COVID https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90536 MedPage Today reported that Richard Urso, MD, a member of the organization, was the subject of a complaint to the Texas Medical Board for prescribing hydroxychloroquine to patients with COVID-19.
How Fauci Fooled America | Opinion When the pandemic hit, America needed someone to turn to for advice. The media and public naturally looked to Dr.Anthony Fauci—the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, an esteemed laboratory immunologist and one of PresidentDonald Trump's chosen COVID advisers. Unfortunately, Dr. Fauci got major epidemiology and public health questions wrong. Reality and scientific studies have now caught up with him. Here are the key issues: Natural immunity.Bypushing vaccine mandates, Dr. Fauci ignores naturally acquired immunity among the COVID-recovered, of which there are more than45 millionin the United States. Mounting evidence indicates that natural immunity is stronger and longer lasting than vaccine-induced immunity. [Eds.: Long-term trends are still unclear. Arecentstudyreached the opposite conclusion, but wascriticizedby an author of this op-ed.] In astudy from Israel, the vaccinated were 27 times more likely to get symptomatic COVID than the unvaccinated who had recovered from a prior infection. We have known about natural immunity from disease at least since theAthenian Plaguein 430 BC. Pilots, truckers and longshoremen know about it, andnurses know it better than anyone. Under Fauci's mandates, hospitals arefiring heroic nurseswho recovered from COVID they contracted while caring for patients. With their superior immunity, they can safely care for the oldest and frailest patients with even lower transmission risk than the vaccinated. NEWSWEEK NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP > Protecting the elderly.While anyone can get infected, there is more than a thousand-fold difference in mortality risk between the old and the young. After more than700,000 reported COVID deathsin America, we now know that lockdowns failed to protect high-risk older people. When confronted with the idea of focused protection of the vulnerable, Dr. Fauci admitted he had no idea how to accomplish it,arguing that it would be impossible. That may be understandable for a lab scientist, but public health scientists have presented manyconcrete suggestionsthat would have helped, had Fauci and other officials not ignored them. What can we do now to minimize COVID mortality? Current vaccination efforts should focus on reaching people over 60 who are neither COVID-recovered nor vaccinated, including hard-to-reach, less-affluent people in rural areas and inner cities. Instead, Dr. Fauci has pushed vaccine mandates for children, students and working-age adults who are already immune—all low-risk populations—causing tremendous disruption to labor markets and hampering the operation of many hospitals. https://www.newsweek.com/how-fauci-fooled-america-opinion-1643839