It's Mareks disease, not Marks -- And I'm speaking about the colloquial term that people are using for the vaccine leaking into the bloodstream from the muscle, not the virologist term. Although I can definitely see how the two can easily get mixed, it's not like most people are virologists, so it's not unexpected. In the context I've been seeing most people discussing, this is what they're referring to, since the Covid vaccines were never designed to stop the spread of the virus to begin with. I think it's just a coincidence or people misusing the term in general. Perhaps it's y fault for not thinking of a better word. I'm not sure what else it should be called when a vaccine that's meant to stay in the muscle leaks into the bloodstream. I'm sure there's a synonym that can work, but my brain is not working right now. Medicine and fever got my cloudy. Maybe I'll just change it to leaking?
But yes, in most regards you are correct. Although it's yet to be seen, it is also possible that these vaccines could currently very likely to be proliferating the evolution of the virus and could be leaky in that traditional sense as well. hard to say at the moment.
I'll update it all later. Too wiped out right now.
Sorry, I had an autocorrect on Marek's that I didn't notice.
It was my understanding that vaccines were generally injected into the muscle so that they wouldn't immediately spread through the body, slowing the infection; but the expectation isn't that nothing from the injection would ever enter the bloodstream. Every cell in the body is a maximum of what, 10 cells away from a blood vessel? It's not so much about preventing the virus from ever reaching the bloodstream as making sure the immune response begins before the injection makes substantial contact with central systems.
I don't remember where I learned that, though, so I'm interested in sources either way.
That's literally what I said in my first post.
However, the original expectations were that the vaccines would be like “traditional” vaccines and the spike protein in the vaxx -- which in Covid cases is what causes infection and most severe symptoms -- would remain mostly in the injection site in the shoulder. Instead, a couple studies show that the spike protein gets into the blood where it circulates for several days after, then accumulates in organs.
Originally, when creating the vaxx, the developers chose the spike protein because they believed it to be a good antigen. As development continued, so did our understanding of the virus itself. Numerous studies has shown that the most severe effects of Covid, such as blood clotting and bleeding, are due to the effects of the spike protein of the virus itself. It wasn't until later they discovered that the spike protein itself was a pathogenic protein -- it's a toxin. So vaccinations may very well be be injecting said toxin into people.
It's important to remember that the speculations of the dangers surrounding the spike protein are only offering a plausible explanation to what we already know. That's many people are currently being effecting by severe reactions to the vaccine. Currently, the entire "counter-claim" comes from duplicitous people who appear to be towing the line, and they refute the claims not by saying they're false, but rather, by simply saying: "The studies never said they were harmful!" or "it's an assumption that if the viral spike protein can cause damage, then the spike protein generated in vaccinated people does the same." Yeah, no shit. That's why it's being noted as a plausible explanation, because what we are undeniably seeing is the vaccine being associated with increased blot clots, strokes, and heart inflammation. These people seem more concerned with pushing their agenda than actually doing real science to discover if it's a possibility.
Furthermore, the same people refuting it are also the ones who are screaming masks and lockdowns are effective, They also disingenuously treat Covid like it's the damn black plague and ignore how inflated the death numbers are due to the CDC changes, and more-or-less attempt to silence literally anyone who doesn't conform with the the narrative. Saying that something is supposed to work in a certain way is not the same as it actually doing just that.
The claim that "the clinical relevance of this finding is unknown and should be further explored" is ridiculous as well. How many people will have to by maim/injured/killed in the meantime? How can these same people be advocating for vaccine mandates while simultaneously spewing nonsense like that?
To put it another way, they want people to participate based on "good faith." But can anyone tell me what they've done to earn the trust of people for the people to have faith in them?
If anything, their actions have not only been antithetical to science -- which is founding on being able to ask any questions you want and to have healthy debates about critical issues -- but they've also been taking a very authoritarian approach to all of this since day one, while completely ignoring any science that came before, and anything they don't want to believe now.
To further illustrate my point, in my first post, I elucidated that there have been 1,517,211 maimed/injured and 9,027 deaths following the vaccines recorded in the U.S. Government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), right?
To any sane person, that should be a huge red flag. Period.
But, it's actually not the worst of it, because that same VAERS report is also being wildly under-reported.
According to a study done back in 2010, before Covid, by Harvard (commissioned by our own government), less than 1% of all adverse reactions to vaccines are actually submitted to VAERS.
To date, the issues with the VAERS report still have not been fixed either.
Let that sink in. So if those numbers above are only representative of <1%, what the hell would the actual statistics look like?
As a fun side-note, the VAERS report also doesn't include the thousands of people being effected by Bell's Palsy.
But you don't hear about any of this on the news either, huh? Social media and big tech almost damn sure that anyone bringing such questions up immediately gets silenced and then the boot as well.
Anyway, I have zero problem if you or anyone else want to take the vaccine. Be my guest. I'm not trying to force you into not getting it or taking my position. The only purpose of my posts is to show why people are hesitant, myself included, and why I have no plan on taking the jab at all. There may very well be things that I end up being wrong about -- and I'm perfectly ok with that. Because it's still important that those things are answered or investigated.
As I said in my first post, it's completely up to you to keep yourself informed and to form your own views on it.
My biggest problem is the people who are getting vaccinated trying to force those who are not, while simultaneously being completely ignorant and simply parroting whatever TV, social media, or celebrities, tell them.
Best of luck to you, man.
Thanks for going through it in more detail, I didn't read your first post carefully enough to get that meaning from it.
I'm actually completely on your side of whether to take the treatment, I just try to make a habit of challenging anything I see that might be wrong with the arguments in support of my own side, so they're as strong as they can be when faced with a real opponent.
For sure. It's good to question things as much as possible.
I believe one of the biggest problems plaguing society right now is that many people are intellectually lazy and would rather win a fight than get closer to the truth.
To me, there's a myriad of reasons that people rightfully should be hesitant to taking the vaccine. I've even had people in my own family severely effected by it.
I even encouraged one to get a second opinion because when they asked their Doctor, he simply replied with, "the vaccine had nothing to do with it." No tests run, no further examination, literally nothing. Just an immediate dismissal.
At least the new Doctor she visited took the claim more seriously and believes it very well may have, but it's still ridiculous nonetheless that any Doctor would be that dismissive.
*nsbp;
Anyway, best of luck to you, man. I hope you continue to be skeptical of everything; it's a trait that's sorely lacking in an age where society demands conformity.
My personal belief is that those who are fearful of expressing an opinion because the people around them might not like it are not free people; they've created chains for themselves in order to gain the acceptance of others.
It's Mareks disease, not Marks -- And I'm speaking about the colloquial term that people are using for the vaccine leaking into the bloodstream from the muscle, not the virologist term. Although I can definitely see how the two can easily get mixed, it's not like most people are virologists, so it's not unexpected. In the context I've been seeing most people discussing, this is what they're referring to, since the Covid vaccines were never designed to stop the spread of the virus to begin with. I think it's just a coincidence or people misusing the term in general. Perhaps it's y fault for not thinking of a better word. I'm not sure what else it should be called when a vaccine that's meant to stay in the muscle leaks into the bloodstream. I'm sure there's a synonym that can work, but my brain is not working right now. Medicine and fever got my cloudy. Maybe I'll just change it to leaking? But yes, in most regards you are correct. Although it's yet to be seen, it is also possible that these vaccines could currently very likely to be proliferating the evolution of the virus and could be leaky in that traditional sense as well. hard to say at the moment. I'll update it all later. Too wiped out right now.
Sorry, I had an autocorrect on Marek's that I didn't notice.
It was my understanding that vaccines were generally injected into the muscle so that they wouldn't immediately spread through the body, slowing the infection; but the expectation isn't that nothing from the injection would ever enter the bloodstream. Every cell in the body is a maximum of what, 10 cells away from a blood vessel? It's not so much about preventing the virus from ever reaching the bloodstream as making sure the immune response begins before the injection makes substantial contact with central systems.
I don't remember where I learned that, though, so I'm interested in sources either way.
That's literally what I said in my first post.
However, the original expectations were that the vaccines would be like “traditional” vaccines and the spike protein in the vaxx -- which in Covid cases is what causes infection and most severe symptoms -- would remain mostly in the injection site in the shoulder. Instead, a couple studies show that the spike protein gets into the blood where it circulates for several days after, then accumulates in organs.
Originally, when creating the vaxx, the developers chose the spike protein because they believed it to be a good antigen. As development continued, so did our understanding of the virus itself. Numerous studies has shown that the most severe effects of Covid, such as blood clotting and bleeding, are due to the effects of the spike protein of the virus itself. It wasn't until later they discovered that the spike protein itself was a pathogenic protein -- it's a toxin. So vaccinations may very well be be injecting said toxin into people.
It's important to remember that the speculations of the dangers surrounding the spike protein are only offering a plausible explanation to what we already know. That's many people are currently being effecting by severe reactions to the vaccine. Currently, the entire "counter-claim" comes from duplicitous people who appear to be towing the line, and they refute the claims not by saying they're false, but rather, by simply saying: "The studies never said they were harmful!" or "it's an assumption that if the viral spike protein can cause damage, then the spike protein generated in vaccinated people does the same." Yeah, no shit. That's why it's being noted as a plausible explanation, because what we are undeniably seeing is the vaccine being associated with increased blot clots, strokes, and heart inflammation. These people seem more concerned with pushing their agenda than actually doing real science to discover if it's a possibility.
Furthermore, the same people refuting it are also the ones who are screaming masks and lockdowns are effective, They also disingenuously treat Covid like it's the damn black plague and ignore how inflated the death numbers are due to the CDC changes, and more-or-less attempt to silence literally anyone who doesn't conform with the the narrative. Saying that something is supposed to work in a certain way is not the same as it actually doing just that.
The claim that "the clinical relevance of this finding is unknown and should be further explored" is ridiculous as well. How many people will have to by maim/injured/killed in the meantime? How can these same people be advocating for vaccine mandates while simultaneously spewing nonsense like that?
To put it another way, they want people to participate based on "good faith." But can anyone tell me what they've done to earn the trust of people for the people to have faith in them?
If anything, their actions have not only been antithetical to science -- which is founding on being able to ask any questions you want and to have healthy debates about critical issues -- but they've also been taking a very authoritarian approach to all of this since day one, while completely ignoring any science that came before, and anything they don't want to believe now.
To further illustrate my point, in my first post, I elucidated that there have been 1,517,211 maimed/injured and 9,027 deaths following the vaccines recorded in the U.S. Government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), right?
To any sane person, that should be a huge red flag. Period.
But, it's actually not the worst of it, because that same VAERS report is also being wildly under-reported.
According to a study done back in 2010, before Covid, by Harvard (commissioned by our own government), less than 1% of all adverse reactions to vaccines are actually submitted to VAERS.
To date, the issues with the VAERS report still have not been fixed either.
Let that sink in. So if those numbers above are only representative of <1%, what the hell would the actual statistics look like?
As a fun side-note, the VAERS report also doesn't include the thousands of people being effected by Bell's Palsy. But you don't hear about any of this on the news either, huh? Social media and big tech almost damn sure that anyone bringing such questions up immediately gets silenced and then the boot as well.
Here's some further reading on the VAERS system, if you're interested:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaccine-injury-reporting-systems-utterly-inadequate/
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-injuries-vaers-cdc/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=9af36675-e8d3-4040-a6be-abcb46990996
Anyway, I have zero problem if you or anyone else want to take the vaccine. Be my guest. I'm not trying to force you into not getting it or taking my position. The only purpose of my posts is to show why people are hesitant, myself included, and why I have no plan on taking the jab at all. There may very well be things that I end up being wrong about -- and I'm perfectly ok with that. Because it's still important that those things are answered or investigated.
As I said in my first post, it's completely up to you to keep yourself informed and to form your own views on it.
My biggest problem is the people who are getting vaccinated trying to force those who are not, while simultaneously being completely ignorant and simply parroting whatever TV, social media, or celebrities, tell them.
Best of luck to you, man.
Thanks for going through it in more detail, I didn't read your first post carefully enough to get that meaning from it.
I'm actually completely on your side of whether to take the treatment, I just try to make a habit of challenging anything I see that might be wrong with the arguments in support of my own side, so they're as strong as they can be when faced with a real opponent.
For sure. It's good to question things as much as possible.
I believe one of the biggest problems plaguing society right now is that many people are intellectually lazy and would rather win a fight than get closer to the truth.
To me, there's a myriad of reasons that people rightfully should be hesitant to taking the vaccine. I've even had people in my own family severely effected by it.
I even encouraged one to get a second opinion because when they asked their Doctor, he simply replied with, "the vaccine had nothing to do with it." No tests run, no further examination, literally nothing. Just an immediate dismissal.
At least the new Doctor she visited took the claim more seriously and believes it very well may have, but it's still ridiculous nonetheless that any Doctor would be that dismissive.
*nsbp;
Anyway, best of luck to you, man. I hope you continue to be skeptical of everything; it's a trait that's sorely lacking in an age where society demands conformity.
My personal belief is that those who are fearful of expressing an opinion because the people around them might not like it are not free people; they've created chains for themselves in order to gain the acceptance of others.
Marek's.
Marek is a common Polish name (usually first name) and I think Czech/Slovak too.