• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mandatory Vaccinations?

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Can any of you tell me why this person -- the "inventor of mRNA technology" -- can only be written up on his own web page, or iHeart Radio -- but absolutely nothing in the mainstream? I mean, such an important contribution to science ought really to be mentioned somewhere, don't you think?

Dig deeper...can he get himself a write up on Wikipedia (other than in German)? Are there peer-reviewed articles you'd like to point to? With such a claim as "invention of mRNA technology," has there ever been a news report about him? Anything?

Crickets!

I repeat what I've said before -- somebody puts something on the web, it instantly becomes inerrant truth to those who really want it to be so. By whom I mean the terminally gullible! And yes, I said that.

For myself, I wouldn't let him treat my lacerated eyelash.
 
Last edited:

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
What research would that be EH? The whitewashed garbage that is broadcast all over the media, or the censored highly stuff that might just be trying to warn people of the danger?

Who has the most to gain? The drug companies pressuring governments to keep flogging their dangerously untested vaccines? Or those who know about the inside information that we are not privy to? What is their gain?
Who has the most to gain? You really want to ask me that question?

Then I will answer you: 99.2% of everybody in the United States and Canada who is DYING from Covid-19 are those who are NOT vaccinated. That, by the way, is a FACT, not an opinion.

Oh, those nasty drug companies!

Grow a brain.
 

Suave

Simulated character
Can any of you tell me why this person -- the "inventor of mRNA technology" -- can only be written up on his own web page, or iHeart Radio -- but absolutely nothing in the mainstream? I mean, such an important contribution to science ought really to be mentioned somewhere, don't you think?

Dig deeper...can he get himself a write up on Wikipedia (other than in German)? Are there peer-reviewed articles you'd like to point to? With such a claim as "invention of mRNA technology," has there ever been a news report about him? Anything?

Crickets!

I repeat what I've said before -- somebody puts something on the web, it instantly becomes inerrant truth to those who really want it to be so. By whom I mean the terminally gullible! And yes, I said that.

For myself, I wouldn't let him treat my lacerated eyelash.
(edited) **In post 378, I referenced the link to his research work published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.**
 
Last edited:

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
What research would that be EH? The whitewashed garbage that is broadcast all over the media, or the censored highly stuff that might just be trying to warn people of the danger?

Who has the most to gain? The drug companies pressuring governments to keep flogging their dangerously untested vaccines? Or those who know about the inside information that we are not privy to? What is their gain?
Do you actually know what research has been done? Have you read the papers that were presented to the legislating bodies, to the WHO, to the CDC? Would you understand what they said if you did try to read them?

And gain? You know, the people who sell you your vegetables are trying to make a profit, too -- so why do you distrust companies who spend billions to invent cures for us who also want to make a profit?

I do not think you are making a great deal of sense. In fact, I think you are making none whatever.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
In post 378, I referenced the link to his published research.
Did you indeed? And yes, I saw it. What does it say? Where is it backed up? Or does it just end with those two meagre paragraphs that nobody else in the world, let alone the scientific world, has ever bothered referrring to again?

Tell me what you know about his genius from those two paragraphs. I'm all agog to know.
 

Suave

Simulated character
Did you indeed? And yes, I saw it. What does it say? Where is it backed up? Or does it just end with those two meagre paragraphs that nobody else in the world, let alone the scientific world, has ever bothered referrring to again?

Tell me what you know about his genius from those two paragraphs. I'm all agog to know.

Link to the full text authored by Dr. Robert Malone regarding Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection

Europe PMC
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Link to the full text authored by Dr. Robert Malone regarding Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection

Europe PMC
"A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still"....why bother...they'll all soon find out.
If I had had the jab trusting these people with my life, I'd want to ignore all the contrary evidence too....
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The reasons that's been on these threads for awhile... side affects, location (some places have more cases than others), age (child, teen, adult, senior), general health, and other factors.... talking with one's doctor before getting the vaccine and other already listed reasons....

No matter what intelligent reason I give, you'd shoot it down.
You haven't really given any reason yet, so you haven't given me the opportunity to shoot anything down.

My question is, though, what does it matter that they Do have intelligent and justified reasons to not take the vaccine?
Let's establish whether they do have any intelligent, valid reasons first before going down that rabbit hole.

Why do they need to be ignorant to make a decisions you disagree with?
(Appeal to ignorance?)
I'll take your spin and deflection on my question as your way of saying "I don't have a real answer."
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
You haven't really given any reason yet, so you haven't given me the opportunity to shoot anything down.


Let's establish whether they do have any intelligent, valid reasons first before going down that rabbit hole.


I'll take your spin and deflection on my question as your way of saying "I don't have a real answer."

Other than what I've listed-side afects, location, etc, I can't think of any other reasons that came up in the thread and television. Whether they are intelligent, that's up to you to decide since whatever reason any of us points out, its not intelligent enough for you.

You mind as well say no matter the reason I won't believe you and cut to the chase. I find the reasons to take the vaccine equally valid. I don't see any wrongs here.

Give me an example of what type of "valid" you speak of...

The criteria for validity have to be agreed on by both of us so there is no confirmation bias and appeal to ignorance (and insult and...) if there are other appropriate reasons not mentioned.

Also. What's with the tone? Provaxxers and one antivaxxer seem to put so much emotional investment in this. If provaxxers what to think the unvacinated want to kill the world, that's their opinion. They'd have to shoot down the reasons I gave for level of risk to prove it's a fact. So far it's just an insulting opinion and with no respect that this is not true and the reasons we give to justify our views it seems like a forgive conclusion.

Cut it with the tone. It's truly not necessary here. I don't know you.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
99.2% out of?
Are you having trouble reading? The sentence speaks for itself. Of all of the people dying within the last few weeks from COVID in Canada and the United States, 99.2% of them were NOT vaccinated, while 0.8% were vaccinated. The vaccinated are simply not dying at anything like the rate of the unvaccinated.

What makes this especially important is that majority of people in both countries have had at least one dose of vaccine, and 47% of Americans and almost 30% of Canadians have been fully vaccinated.

Nothing -- absolutely nothing -- could be a clearer statement about the efficacy of the vaccines.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
What valid intelligent reasons? Please be specific.

Now I think if it... Here's some links. First in line, still no shot: Surprising number of hospital workers refuse vaccines

The problem I see you're having is you're not accepting these reasons-it being experimental and use effects-are valid reasons not to take the vaccine.

The only invalid reasons I can think of as a reason nit to take it is if you're deciding just because you feel you'd be murdering millions if people, confirmation bias, and Hurd mentality. It feels like I'm on the outside looking in. But in general, some nurses have more valid reasons than others. I said "a nurse..." Not all nurses. I was giving an example but people make justified and unjustified choices all the time.

The key is, whose criteria are you using to determine validation?

Potentionally killing people by an unknown factor isn't strong enough.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Other than what I've listed-side afects, location, etc, I can't think of any other reasons that came up in the thread and television. Whether they are intelligent, that's up to you to decide since whatever reason any of us points out, its not intelligent enough for you.
I mean that just saying "location" or "side effects" isn't giving a reason. That would look something like this:

- a hypothetical nurse lives/works/whatever in location X.
- (insert whatever facts you think are relevant about location X).
- because of this, the nurse has refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19 (AND thinks that it's reasonable that they keep doing front-line patient care despite being vaccinated).

You mind as well say no matter the reason I won't believe you and cut to the chase. I find the reasons to take the vaccine equally valid. I don't see any wrongs here.
Since you haven't given any actual reasons yet - valid or not - I can't say whether any of them really are valid.

Give me an example of what type of "valid" you speak of...
Let's just try for "coherently expressed" first. Once we pass that hurdle, we can worry about whether they're vaccinated.

The criteria for validity have to be agreed on by both of us so there is no confirmation bias and appeal to ignorance (and insult and...) if there are other appropriate reasons not mentioned.
No, I'll be my own judge of what I think is valid or reasonable.

Also. What's with the tone? Provaxxers and one antivaxxer seem to put so much emotional investment in this. If provaxxers what to think the unvacinated want to kill the world, that's their opinion. They'd have to shoot down the reasons I gave for level of risk to prove it's a fact. So far it's just an insulting opinion and with no respect that this is not true and the reasons we give to justify our views it seems like a forgive conclusion.

Cut it with the tone. It's truly not necessary here. I don't know you.
The tone is because I think you're approaching this discussion in bad faith. Several times now, you've tried to deflect from questions instead of giving straight answers. This suggests to me that either:

- you have no answer and you know it, or
- you know that the answer doesn't help your position, so you want to distract from it.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
Please let us concur 309 hospitalizations from heart inflammation out of 3 million young adult men and adolescent males vaccinated would figure out to be a serious complication rate of 1 in 10,000 or 0.01 percent., that'd be a thousand times higher rate of complications than the 0.00001% of people developed complications you'd mentioned.
My math was for all the shots and the complications on that page.
300 people out of 3,000,000 is .0001%

Now your mission is to find what other complications people had before the shot. And find a common theme.
Seems to me people are making a mountain out of a molehill.

99.999%, seems pretty darn safe.
 
Last edited:

Suave

Simulated character
My math was for all the shots and the complications on that page.
300 people out of 3,000,000 is .0001%

Now your mission is to find what other complications people had before the shot. And find a common theme.
Seems to me people are making a mountain out of a molehill.

99.999%, seems pretty darn safe.
You like those odds, that happens to be the survival rate of a young adults making a full recovery from having been infected by C.O.V.I.D.-19.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
You like those odds, that happens to be the survival rate of a young adults making a full recovery from having been infected by C.O.V.I.D.-19.
Good. There's really no reason to think this is a yuge problem. This isn't an excuse to use against getting vaccinated.
If someone uses it as an excuse, you can assume they're very fearful of tiny tiny percentages. (or someone lied to them)
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Between December 2020 and June 7th, 2021, VAERS received 5,208 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who got a vaccine. Doctors and safety monitors carefully review the details of each case to see if it might be linked to the vaccine. There are three deaths that appear to be linked to blood clots that occurred after people got the J&J vaccine.

How many people have died from the vaccine in the U.S.? - COVID-101

The obituary of Jacob Clynick reveals he died at age of 13. A viral Twitter post hints Jacob’s cause of death was a covid vaccine.

Jacob Clynick Cause Of Death, Vaccine Age And Parents - Wikiage.org

paidi-264x300.jpg
Unfortunately, VAERS isn't really the best place to get this sort of information, as far as accurate data goes. There is no regulation as to what can be reported/posted. The reports are not verified before they are entered into the database. The CDC says that, "VAERS data alone cannot determine if the vaccine caused the reported adverse event."
Yes, doctors and safety monitors try to review and check all the complaints, but just because a person complains that a vaccine injured them or their child, doesn't mean a vaccine actually injured them or their child. I have a friend that will, to this day, claims up and down that the MMR vaccine caused her child to be autistic and has submitted a report to VAERS (probably more than one).

Take for a example, an anesthesiologist who put in a complaint that a flu vaccine caused him to turn into the Incredible Hulk. Guess what? He got a payout from VAERS.
The guy straight up said his intent in doing this was, "to show the need for caution when interpreting the data found in VAERS, the national vaccine safety surveillance program run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)." He said the CDC did actually follow up with his report, and only removed it from the VAERS database with his permission. The VAERS database really isn't the best source of accurate data on this stuff.

""What (VAERS) gives you is one piece of information: You had a vaccine, had a side effect," he said. "That in no sense tells you whether or not the side effect was caused by the vaccine. So it’s a noisy system that frankly is more frightening than helpful."


Some self-reported CDC data fueling the anti-vaccination movement
PolitiFact - Federal VAERS database is a critical tool for researchers, but a breeding ground for misinformation
VAERS | Vaccine Safety | CDC
 
Last edited:

Suave

Simulated character
Unfortunately, VAERS isn't really the best place to get this sort of information, as far as accurate data goes. There is no regulation as to what can be reported/posted. The reports are not verified before they are entered into the database. Yes, doctors and safety monitors try to review and check all the complaints, but just because a person complains that a vaccine injured them or their child, doesn't mean a vaccine actually injured them or their child. I have a friend that will, to this day, claims up and down that the MMR vaccine caused her child to be autistic and has submitted a report to VAERS (probably more than one).

Take for a example, an anesthesiologist who put in a complaint that a flu vaccine caused him to turn into the Incredible Hulk. Guess what? He got a payout from VAERS.
The guy straight up said his intent in doing this was, "to show the need for caution when interpreting the data found in VAERS, the national vaccine safety surveillance program run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)." He said the CDC did actually follow up with his report, and only removed it from the VAERS database with his permission. The VAERS database really isn't the best source of accurate data on this stuff.

""What (VAERS) gives you is one piece of information: You had a vaccine, had a side effect," he said. "That in no sense tells you whether or not the side effect was caused by the vaccine. So it’s a noisy system that frankly is more frightening than helpful."


Some self-reported CDC data fueling the anti-vaccination movement
PolitiFact - Federal VAERS database is a critical tool for researchers, but a breeding ground for misinformation

309 hospitalizations for heart inflammation among C.O.V.I.D.-19 mRNA vaccinated young adult males and adolescent males in comparison to 8 among an equal amount of the non-vaccinated; this should draw a red flag, which this has by the FDA requiring warning of this adverse side effect from being vaccinated.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I mean that just saying "location" or "side effects" isn't giving a reason. That would look something like this:

- a hypothetical nurse lives/works/whatever in location X.
- (insert whatever facts you think are relevant about location X).
- because of this, the nurse has refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19 (AND thinks that it's reasonable that they keep doing front-line patient care despite being vaccinated).

Some nurses refused because they feel "it's their body, their choice." Others say (so quickly researched) that they don't want to take experimental drugs. Maybe other nurses have political agendas and others do not.

There's a varied of reasons. I find the my body, my choice (without the political flare) reasonable and I definitely feel a non-approved FDA experimental drug is a good reason not to take the vaccine.

Since you haven't given any actual reasons yet - valid or not - I can't say whether any of them really are valid.

Above.

My question is, whose criteria of validation are you going off of?


No, I'll be my own judge of what I think is valid or reasonable.

That's my point. You can say the reasons I gave above is invalid, but that's your opinion.

I'm not sure what other point you're making because I'm not trying to change your opinions.

The tone is because I think you're approaching this discussion in bad faith. Several times now, you've tried to deflect from questions instead of giving straight answers. This suggests to me that either:

- you have no answer and you know it, or
- you know that the answer doesn't help your position, so you want to distract from it.

Assumptions aren't facts.

You'd have to do what you just did above-clarification to make your point without the accusational tone. Your tone really messes up your points. That, and if you only use your criteria for validation, you can assume I'm deflecting but it won't be true unless you can prove it. Which is hard to do online--all we can do is talk it out. Takes patience.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Link to the full text authored by Dr. Robert Malone regarding Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection

Europe PMC
You'll have to forgive my skepticism, but I really do smell something very fishy about this guy. I've tried and tried to find out more about his scientific successes, but other than what he appears to have written about himself, there just isn't much.

Let me point out that if, as he states repeatedly, he "invented" the mRNA technology, this would be a hugely significant feat, and it should have been written up everywhere. But it isn't.

Have a read of this Wikepedia article on the development of mRNA vaccines. He is not mentioned, except in 3 quite marginal footnotes. In fact, he has no entry on Wikipedia at all. I did find a Reddit statement that he did not "invent" the technology, but contributed only a minor bit early on -- which the Wikipedia article seems to support.

Now, I did find a piece in the German Wikipedia on him. (why only German? Why not English?) And translated, it supports what I said above -- minor contributor, who shortly after his contribution, left the lab he was working in, started elsewhere and quit in a few months due to "personal differences," and then moved out of that area of science altogether.

Below is the beginning of the German Wiki entry, followed by the translation:

"Malone studierte Medizin an der Northwestern University mit dem Abschluss eines M.D., war Postdoktorand in klinischer Forschung an der Harvard University und erhielt seine Facharztausbildung in Pathologie an der University of California, Davis.[2] Als Doktorand am Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla war er einer der Hauptautoren und treibende Kraft einer Studie, in der erstmals beschrieben wurde, wie Proteinexpression in einer Fremdzelle über durch in Fettkügelchen (Liposomen) verpackte DNA bzw. RNA angestoßen werden kann, damals noch im Rahmen der Hoffnungen zur Gentherapie. Das gilt als erste wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung zu den grundlegenden Prinzipien zum Beispiel von RNA-Impfstoffen, die bei der Covid-19-Pandemie 2020/21 erfolgreich waren.[3][4] Ko-Autoren der grundlegenden Arbeit von 1989 waren Philip Felgner und Inder Verma.[5] In einer Folgearbeit, die ursprünglich nur zur Kontrolle der Übertragung mittels Liposomen diente, wurde erstmals gezeigt, dass auch „nackte“ ungeschützte m-RNA, die direkt in die Muskelzellen von Mäusen injiziert wurde, Proteinexpression in Zellen über einige Tage auslösen können.[6][4] Die entscheidenden Patente (siehe Schriftenverzeichnis, daran beteiligt war auch Philip Felgner, später Leiter des Zentrums für Impfstoffentwicklung an der University of California, Irvine) verblieben bei seiner arbeitgebenden Firma, das sie später weiterverkaufte. Er war vom Salk-Institut an einen anderen Arbeitgeber gewechselt[7] und dort schon nach drei Monaten wegen persönlicher Differenzen ausgeschieden.[3] Malone selbst wechselte bald darauf das Forschungsgebiet und arbeitete nicht weiter in dieser Richtung.[3]
Zurzeit (2021) lebt er in Madison (Virginia) und leitet eine eigene Beraterfirma."

"Malone studied medicine at Northwestern University with an M.D., was a postdoctoral fellow in clinical research at Harvard University, and received his residency in pathology from the University of California, Davis. [2] As a doctoral student at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, he was one of the main authors and driving force behind a study that described for the first time how protein expression in a foreign cell can be triggered by DNA or RNA packed in liposomes still in line with the hopes for gene therapy. This is considered to be the first scientific publication on the basic principles of, for example, RNA vaccines that were successful in the Covid-19 pandemic 2020/21. [3] [4] Co-authors of the basic paper from 1989 were Philip Felgner and Inder Verma. [5] In a follow-up study, which originally only served to control the transmission by means of liposomes, it was shown for the first time that "naked" unprotected m-RNA, which was injected directly into the muscle cells of mice, can trigger protein expression in cells over a period of several days. [6 ] [4] The decisive patents (see list of publications, also involved was Philip Felgner, later head of the Center for Vaccine Development at the University of California, Irvine) remained with his employer, which they later sold on. He moved from the Salk Institute to another employer [7] and left there after three months due to personal differences. [3] Malone himself changed the field of research soon after and did not work further in this direction. [3]

He currently (2021) lives in Madison (Virginia) and runs his own consulting company."
 
Top