| The definition: mRNA does not stimulate the immune system directly. That's what's new about it. Did you know that? It tricks the cells of the body to create protein that then get hopefully a reaction from the immune sys. They typically also add some other stuff that helps to elicit this reaction (usually stuff that in large quantities is harmful to humans). > Definitions made prior to the pandemic would already fit the mRNA vaccines, therefore the claim that the definition was stretched for marketing/persuasion reasons don't really hold water. You you say mRNA treatment is not new? I think this is the first rollout of such medicine on humans. > "Approval pending" / "Citation needed? " Ok, I misquoted this. Here what I did mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_COVID-19_vaccine_de... See the PhaseIII trails were allowed to be skipped with the EUA. The process by which the treatment is now pushed to kids is even more botched. I believe we are exposing the younger (say <60) to risks bigger than the c19 poses itself. Yes we're dealing with an overly stressed healthcare system, but that's a different matter. The jab should be worth it for the person him/her self, and that should be made clear to that person, if they dont believe it they will not take it and that's their choice. Im okay with tax being used to give people that want the free jabs. Im not okay with persuding people to to take it with anythign other than data. |