Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?

[KCfromNC]

Only we don't know yet if it causes permanent damage.

Same issue with the more frequent occurrence of the problem from covid.

 

[renniks]

Same issue with the more frequent occurrence of the problem from covid.

So, flip a coin. I'd rather rely on my immune system than put a substance in my body that alters my DNA.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

So, flip a coin. I'd rather rely on my immune system than put a substance in my body that alters my DNA.

There's no substance altering anybody's DNA in any Covid vaccines.

 

[honey badger]

There's no substance altering anybody's DNA in any Covid vaccines.

oh really ... you obviously have not read the packaging ...

example on the AstraZeneca package its has (ChAd0x1-S [recombinant])

now go do some research ...

 

[ArmenianJohn]

oh really ... you obviously have not read the packaging ...

example on the AstraZeneca package its has (ChAd0x1-S [recombinant])

now go do some research ...

That's rich. No, it doesn't say it on "the packaging", LOL. Now go do some research.

 

[honey badger]

That's rich. No, it doesn't say it on "the packaging", LOL. Now go do some research.

yes it does ...

its even listed on the WHO website ... here is a cut and paste


Interim recommendations for use of the ChAdOx1-S [recombinant] vaccine against COVID-19 (AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine AZD1222 Vaxzevria™, SII COVISHIELD™)

 

[pitabread]

I'd rather rely on my immune system than put a substance in my body that alters my DNA.

Except the vaccines don't alter your DNA (the mRNA vaccines specifically lack the enzymes for reverse transcription), whereas the SARS-CoV-2 virus can: Reverse-transcribed SARS-CoV-2 RNA can integrate into the genome of cultured human cells and can be expressed in patient-derived tissues

Plus, even on the highly unlikely chance that reverse transcription occurred with the vaccine, given the injection site and short-lived nature of the mRNA strands, at best it would integrate into somatic cells at the injection site (e.g. shoulder muscle). Which in turn are likely to be replaced anyway through normal cellular regeneration.

Whereas the virus can spread throughout your entire body and therefore more likely to integrate with somatic cells (e.g. eggs, sperm) and therefore become part of the DNA that would potentially be passed onto offspring and thus become part of the gene pool.

So if you're worried about altering your DNA, you're far more at risk of that from the virus than the vaccine.

 

[renniks]

Except the vaccines don't alter your DNA (the mRNA vaccines specifically lack the enzymes for reverse transcription), whereas the SARS-CoV-2 virus can: Reverse-transcribed SARS-CoV-2 RNA can integrate into the genome of cultured human cells and can be expressed in patient-derived tissues

Plus, even on the highly unlikely chance that reverse transcription occurred with the vaccine, given the injection site and short-lived nature of the mRNA strands, at best it would integrate into somatic cells at the injection site (e.g. shoulder muscle). Which in turn are likely to be replaced anyway through normal cellular regeneration.

Whereas the virus can spread throughout your entire body and therefore more likely to integrate with somatic cells (e.g. eggs, sperm) and therefore become part of the DNA that would potentially be passed onto offspring and thus become part of the gene pool.

So if you're worried about altering your DNA, you're far more at risk of that from the virus than the vaccine.

So my immune system will work against the vaccine but not against the virus? Lol. Double speak at it's best!

 

[essentialsaltes]

at best it would integrate into somatic cells at the injection site (e.g. shoulder muscle).

Haha, everyone should take care not to get jabbed in the gonads.

 

[pitabread]

So my immune system will work against the vaccine but not against the virus? Lol. Double speak at it's best!

I think we need to go over the immune system and how viruses and vaccines work.

Viruses work by infecting human cells, hijacking the cellular machinery to make copies of themselves, which then go on to infect more cells, etc. The cells themselves die as a result of this process.

Your immune system fights the virus by developing antibodies, but by that point the virus is already well on its way making these copies of itself. This is why people get symptoms; it's the immune response after the virus has invaded the body and started doing its damage.

In this process of the virus hijacking your cells, there is the possibility the virus could undergo reverse transcription and integrate itself into your nuclear DNA in one or more cells.

Conversely, the mRNA vaccines work by injecting short messenger RNA strands into your body, which similar to the virus, use existing cells to create copies of the spike protein used by the virus. The key difference is they aren't designed to replicate themselves, nor contain the enzymes to permit reverse transcription (thus not integrating themselves into your nuclear DNA in your cells). The mRNA strands are relatively short-lived; once a bunch of spike proteins have been created, your body generates antibodies to fight those.

Since the spike proteins don't replicate themselves, the pseudo-infection from the vaccine is relatively short-lived.

Meanwhile, your body having generated the antibodies via the vaccine, is now better equipped to provoke an immediate immune response against the virus, rather than waiting for your body to develop antibodies while the virus is replicating itself.

If you're worried about having your DNA altered, taking the vaccine is a much better way of preventing that than waiting to get infected by the actual virus.

In fact, pretty much anything you could be worried about from the vaccine (short of a jab in the arm and associated swelling) is going to be potentially worse from the virus itself.

 

[renniks]

I think we need to go over the immune system and how viruses and vaccines work.

Viruses work by infecting human cells, hijacking the cellular machinery to make copies of themselves, which then go on to infect more cells, etc. The cells themselves die as a result of this process.

Your immune system fights the virus by developing antibodies, but by that point the virus is already well on its way making these copies of itself. This is why people get symptoms; it's the immune response after the virus has invaded the body and started doing its damage.

In this process of the virus hijacking your cells, there is the possibility the virus could undergo reverse transcription and integrate itself into your nuclear DNA in one or more cells.

Conversely, the mRNA vaccines work by injecting short messenger RNA strands into your body, which similar to the virus, use existing cells to create copies of the spike protein used by the virus. The key difference is they aren't designed to replicate themselves, nor contain the enzymes to permit reverse transcription (thus not integrating themselves into your nuclear DNA in your cells). The mRNA strands are relatively short-lived; once a bunch of spike proteins have been created, your body generates antibodies to fight those.

Since the spike proteins don't replicate themselves, the pseudo-infection from the vaccine is relatively short-lived.

Meanwhile, your body having generated the antibodies via the vaccine, is now better equipped to provoke an immediate immune response against the virus, rather than waiting for your body to develop antibodies while the virus is replicating itself.

If you're worried about having your DNA altered, taking the vaccine is a much better way of preventing that than waiting to get infected by the actual virus.

In fact, pretty much anything you could be worried about from the vaccine (short of a jab in the arm and associated swelling) is going to be potentially worse from the virus itself.

"Specifically, a new study by MIT and Harvard scientists demonstrates that segments of the RNA from the coronavirus itself are most likely becoming a permanent fixture in human DNA. (study linked below). This was once thought near impossible, for the same reasons which are presented to assure us that an RNA vaccine could accomplish no such feat. Against the tides of current biological dogma, these researchers found that the genetic segments of this RNA virus are more than likely making their way into our genome. "

MIT & Harvard Study Suggests mRNA Vaccine Might Permanently Alter DNA After All

 

[pitabread]

"Specifically, a new study by MIT and Harvard scientists demonstrates that segments of the RNA from the coronavirus itself are most likely becoming a permanent fixture in human DNA. (study linked below). This was once thought near impossible, for the same reasons which are presented to assure us that an RNA vaccine could accomplish no such feat. Against the tides of current biological dogma, these researchers found that the genetic segments of this RNA virus are more than likely making their way into our genome. "

MIT & Harvard Study Suggests mRNA Vaccine Might Permanently Alter DNA After All

That blog post is woefully misleading. It's misrepresenting the study I linked, which talks about the virus, not the vaccine, integrating into human host nuclear DNA.

Fact Check-Controversial MIT study does not show that mRNA vaccines alter DNA

Worth noting is the author does later state: "To be fair, this study didn’t show that the RNA from the current vaccines is being integrated into our DNA", but that apparently didn't stop them from writing a completely incorrect and deliberately misleading headline.

Further reading that blog, they also appear to be arguing a strawman when they claim that people are being told that RNA sequences can't be integrated into DNA. I don't know anyone who actually claims that; certainly not biologists making that claim.

Rather, it's that the vaccine lacks the reverse transcription enzymes making it highly difficult (albeit not impossible) to integrate into human DNA. Then there is the aforementioned fact that the integration point is still going to be far lower in scope and risk with the vaccine versus the real virus, given the vaccine doesn't make copies of itself in the body. The mRNA strands have an extremely short longevity.

All of this adds up to the fact that you're still much greater at risk for integration of viral RNA into your DNA than you are from the vaccine.

 

[Mayzoo]

True.

Quoting 480,000 children getting it as one person did, means nothing - it’s like quoting how many get the cold virus - as COVID does not kill, or even badly affect healthy children - nor are infected children spreaders.

It’s the overreaction of immune system in the lungs that kills, by causing a “cytokine storm” resulting in severe inflammation that keeps air from entering the alveoli, and that happens the worst in the elderly - the immune systems of healthy children don’t have that overreaction problem.

They aren’t badly affected by it, and don’t spread it, and don’t need jabbed.

How do children sanitize the air output for coughs, sneezes, and breathes so they do not spread the virus? We need to figure that out so we can implement it for adults and put an end to this virus.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

Fact Check-Controversial MIT study does not show that mRNA vaccines alter DNA

Thomson Reuters is most likely owned and conforms to the editorial agenda of its institutional investment firm overlords. And those who have bothered to look will know that the institutional investment in MSM, social media, and almost all of the Blue Chip corporations, is a vast network and pyramid consisting of a multitude of investment firms. And that vast pyramid ends at the top with Blackrock and Vanguard. Beyond Blackrock and Vanguard, the ownership is difficult to identify, but all that matters is that they can crash any stock price if the CEO doesn't do their bidding.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there isn't any impartial, honest main stream media. If you think Thomson Reuters can be trusted, you've been well and truly duped. Same applies to large corporations support for BLM, despite all of the burning, looting, and murdering. They're just doing what the institutional investors at the top of the pyramid tell them to, which is to sow division, unrest, and hatred. If the CEOs don't comply, the stock price can be crashed in an instant.

Don't bother shouting 'conspiracy theory'. I don't care if you want to remain ignorant. Wise people have already realised that there is a vast network and pyramid of institutional investing that mostly ends in just two investment firms, Blackrock and Vanguard.

As an aside, UK readers might find it interesting to note that after inflicting years of crippling austerity on the British public, George Osborne, the ex-chancellor, was employed by Blackrock. In return for working 1 day a week, he was rewarded with £650,000 a year.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Well, this is a bit awkward for the pro-vaxxers. I guess they'll claim that this paper was written by the wrong kind of experts and scientists. But unlike some of the publications on vaccine effectiveness, the authors of this paper don't have numerous statements in the 'competing interests' section.

Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?

The scientific statements in this paper may have been peer-reviewed, but the opinionated conclusion was not. For example, the paper makes the (correct) statement that almost 5000 deaths were reported in the VAERS by May, but the conclusion that this is a high number is not supported at all. 7,800 people die every day in the U.S. for all sorts of unrelated reasons. In 5 months (the time period of vaccines up until May), that comes to 1.17 million deaths from non-vaccine causes. It is not at all unreasonable that 5000 of those deaths just happened to be within 2 weeks of someone getting the vaccine. The authors relied upon a "first principles" confirmation of the significance of this number, which is another way of saying "hand-waving."

The paper refers to the Covid-19 "pandemic" in scare quotes in a clear attempt to cast doubt on the term pandemic - all without violating any scientific principle which would cause a scientific reviewer to reject the paper. There are many other examples. The end result is that the opinions expressed in this paper have no more authority than Tucker Carlson or Anderson Cooper and should be treated as an opinion piece and not a true scientific finding of any sort.

 

[renniks]

That blog post is woefully misleading. It's misrepresenting the study I linked, which talks about the virus, not the vaccine, integrating into human host nuclear DNA.

Fact Check-Controversial MIT study does not show that mRNA vaccines alter DNA

Worth noting is the author does later state: "To be fair, this study didn’t show that the RNA from the current vaccines is being integrated into our DNA", but that apparently didn't stop them from writing a completely incorrect and deliberately misleading headline.

Further reading that blog, they also appear to be arguing a strawman when they claim that people are being told that RNA sequences can't be integrated into DNA. I don't know anyone who actually claims that; certainly not biologists making that claim.

Rather, it's that the vaccine lacks the reverse transcription enzymes making it highly difficult (albeit not impossible) to integrate into human DNA. Then there is the aforementioned fact that the integration point is still going to be far lower in scope and risk with the vaccine versus the real virus, given the vaccine doesn't make copies of itself in the body. The mRNA strands have an extremely short longevity.

All of this adds up to the fact that you're still much greater at risk for integration of viral RNA into your DNA than you are from the vaccine.

Now you are changing your tune. Why would I take something that can change my DNA, which you just admitted is possible?
Especially when there's a very strong likelihood that if I get covid it will be a mild case that my immune system can handle? For all I know I might have already had it and had no real symptoms.

 

[pitabread]

Now you are changing your tune. Why would I take something that can change my DNA, which you just admitted is possible?

While it's theoretically possible, it would be extremely rare for it to occur. Again, the mRNA vaccines specifically do not include the enzymes for reverse transcription and integration into nuclear DNA.

Especially when there's a very strong likelihood that if I get covid it will be a mild case that my immune system can handle? For all I know I might have already had it and had no real symptoms.

You're worried about the vaccine altering your DNA, when such an occurrence would be far more likely via the virus.

Being more worried about effects of the vaccine than the virus doesn't make any sense. The virus is riskier for your body than the vaccine.

 

[pitabread]

Thomson Reuters is most likely owned and conforms to the editorial agenda of its institutional investment firm overlords.

This has nothing to do with Reuters. It just happens to be a site that explains the context of the original paper that the other site was mispresenting.

You can go read the original study itself and it says nothing about vaccines changing people DNA.

That blog post that renniks linked is simply spreading misinformation. That's the context of this discussion.

 

[renniks]

Being more worried about effects of the vaccine than the virus doesn't make any sense. The virus is riskier for your body than the vaccine.

Only I can make that call and I'm not buying what you are selling.
Lots and lots of individual testimony says otherwise.

 

[pitabread]

Only I can make that call and I'm not buying what you are selling.

You're entitled to your own opinion. However, you're not entitled to your own facts.