The genius behind the Novavax vaccine is not so much in its traditional use of a viral protein subunit but in its use of a saponin adjuvant. Saponins provoke an immune response, but through anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, prevent an over-inflammatory response. In doing so, this phytochemical likely eliminates or greatly reduces the chances of either myocarditis or immune thrombocytopenia (blood clotting).
Oh, I know this is an investment ad, but I'm just curious if their reasoning actually makes sense.
Mainly because if myocarditis can be prevented by using a different adjuvant, it rules out "natural" side effects and places the blame firmly on those who created the current vaccines. It would confirm my theory that myocarditis is deliberate, a choice made by feminist scientists to harm men.
The injections may be damaging fertility as well. Menstrual cycle disruption has been observed after injection. So, I don't think that it is just men being adversely effected.
It doesn't confirm that at all. It's far more likely that they 1) saved billions of dollars by not including anti-inflammatory compounds and 2) knew that such a hedge would be correctly seen as an admission of serious adverse effects.
It's far more likely that they 1) saved billions of dollars by not including anti-inflammatory compounds
From the article (emphasis mine):
Novavax is still well-positioned to be the preferred vaccine in developing countries, as its vaccine is less expensive than its competitors and much easier to store than its mRNA rivals.
knew that such a hedge would be correctly seen as an admission of serious adverse effects.
An admission that such effects were monitored and dealt with.
You're talking about companies that are doing major damage control on this very topic. They're silencing anyone who even mentions it and continue the line "mild myocarditis" even though such a thing doesn't exist.
Would people have more trust in the jabs if they had worked to prevent this effect?
Saving money is possible, but without knowing how much it costs to produce a dose of Novavax, I can't say if it actually did add cost to put this risk mitigating measure in.
Unfortunately, we still do not know the long term effects, and natural immunity is superior at this point.
Medical treatment should never be mandated.
Oh, I know this is an investment ad, but I'm just curious if their reasoning actually makes sense.
Mainly because if myocarditis can be prevented by using a different adjuvant, it rules out "natural" side effects and places the blame firmly on those who created the current vaccines. It would confirm my theory that myocarditis is deliberate, a choice made by feminist scientists to harm men.
The injections may be damaging fertility as well. Menstrual cycle disruption has been observed after injection. So, I don't think that it is just men being adversely effected.
It's not just men. Imp is literally mentally ill.
It doesn't confirm that at all. It's far more likely that they 1) saved billions of dollars by not including anti-inflammatory compounds and 2) knew that such a hedge would be correctly seen as an admission of serious adverse effects.
From the article (emphasis mine):
An admission that such effects were monitored and dealt with.
You're talking about companies that are doing major damage control on this very topic. They're silencing anyone who even mentions it and continue the line "mild myocarditis" even though such a thing doesn't exist.
Would people have more trust in the jabs if they had worked to prevent this effect?
Saving money is possible, but without knowing how much it costs to produce a dose of Novavax, I can't say if it actually did add cost to put this risk mitigating measure in.