Covid-19 Vaccine Research, Development, Ingredients and Reactions

[carlos]

On 10/24/2020 at 8:38 AM, sunshine said:

Most people simply dont have the time or dont know how to find alternative narratives about vaccines in general and this "vaccine" in particular  (and alternative journalism is being wiped off the net as we speak)...that's okay, Jehovah will protect us.  That said I have and I have ZERO doubt that what they want to do with humanity via this vaccine is horrific and I choose my words carefully my brother.

Rosie, we see things differently. There's a wealth of evidence that vaccines save millions of lives every year. Even the Slave has said that in our publications. I see no reason to think this one vaccine is different. A vaccine is exactly the same as suffering the disease, only without suffering the symptoms.

 

I agree that nobody should be forced to take a vaccine against their will. And more so if there is a chance (as small as it is) to have a bad reaction to it. But on the other hand, I find it quite reasonable that, if a person becomes a danger for others because he or she refuses to be vaccinated, that person is not allowed to travel or be close to others. Even Jehovah's law to Moses said that someone who had an infectious disease had to be isolated from the rest. Imagine if people with ebola or SARS were allowed to travel and to interact with others!

 

On 10/24/2020 at 8:47 AM, Lieblingskind said:

How did she do that by quoting the Awake? In effect the Awake leaves this up to the reader, as I assume was meant by her posting it. It is a conscience matter and whether one is for or against it, she is only reposting the Slave's view.

 

Her previous posts were her reasons concluded for not wanting to jump on the vaccine bandwagon, which she is entitled to, but doesn't mean she is saying others cannot.  Rather from her own personal research and experiences from those around her, she personally would not. Where has she judged anyone or saying our publications are against vaccinations??

Brittany, sister Nancy has all the right to choose her medical treatments, and she didn't judge anyone. Nobody is saying that. I am not criticizing nor attacking her, just expressing a different opinion. That isolated quote may give the impression the Slave is saying vaccines are dangerous. But that is not what the magazine is saying. Please, have a look at the context:

 

In *** g88 9/22 p. 7 Helping the Children Stay Alive! *** Awake! listed vaccination as one effective measure to prevent children from dying of infectious diseases. A few months later, in *** g89 2/22 p. 28 From Our Readers ***, they published a couple letters from antivax readers who were offended by that mention in that article. The magazine's reply is what sister Nancy quoted: every drug and every medical treatment, including vaccines, may have some undesirable effects, so it's a personal matter to take them or not. That doesn't mean the organization is against vaccines any more than they are against surgery or painkillers.

 

Our publications have admitted many times that vaccines are a very efficient measure to prevent contagions and that they save many lives. There is no questioning that. They have included vaccines among other practical measures to avoid getting sick. Now of course every Christian has the right to decide which treatments he or she will accept.

 

Edited October 25, 2020 by carlos

[Amygdala]

So in other news in the US, Moderna has secured a $1.5 billion dollar-valued CV vaccine contract deal with the US Dept. of HHS, and have lots of incentive to kick out it's vaccine by the end of January 2021:

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/10/24/927474041/a-federal-coronavirus-vaccine-contract-released-at-last-but-redactions-obscure-t

 

 

Quote

Moderna will get an extra $300 million if it receives approval or an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration "on or before January 31, 2021," according to a company disclosure about this contract. But the speed bonus one of many things that has been redacted from the contract that HHS released.

Just around the corner...

[sunshine]

11 hours ago, carlos said:

Rosie, we see things differently. .... I see no reason to think this one vaccine is different.

 

 

I 'm sure you don't.   Possible however you may also appreciated I might have researched  at length, in depth and for years before speaking as I do. As or quaretining, in principle it is of course a good idea but it is based on the principles of quaretining the sick or infectious.  And even then not imposing treatment.  The Mosaic law also did not impose indefinite quaretining of the healthy, the principles being to establish whether or not symtoms develope.

 

Anyway, I hope I'm wrong ; I dont think I am.

[vern]

If there is a conspiracy to hurt poeple.....  All i have to say is.... Jehovah will have reason to roar at armageddon when he does.... Use to think it was a run out of time thing but its turning out tobe a just cause....

[runner92]

23 hours ago, carlos said:

Rosie, we see things differently. There's a wealth of evidence that vaccines save millions of lives every year. Even the Slave has said that in our publications. I see no reason to think this one vaccine is different. A vaccine is exactly the same as suffering the disease, only without suffering the symptoms.

 

I agree that nobody should be forced to take a vaccine against their will. And more so if there is a chance (as small as it is) to have a bad reaction to it. But on the other hand, I find it quite reasonable that, if a person becomes a danger for others because he or she refuses to be vaccinated, that person is not allowed to travel or be close to others. Even Jehovah's law to Moses said that someone who had an infectious disease had to be isolated from the rest. Imagine if people with ebola or SARS were allowed to travel and to interact with others!

 

Brittany, sister Nancy has all the right to choose her medical treatments, and she didn't judge anyone. Nobody is saying that. I am not criticizing nor attacking her, just expressing a different opinion. That isolated quote may give the impression the Slave is saying vaccines are dangerous. But that is not what the magazine is saying. Please, have a look at the context:

 

In *** g88 9/22 p. 7 Helping the Children Stay Alive! *** Awake! listed vaccination as one effective measure to prevent children from dying of infectious diseases. A few months later, in *** g89 2/22 p. 28 From Our Readers ***, they published a couple letters from antivax readers who were offended by that mention in that article. The magazine's reply is what sister Nancy quoted: every drug and every medical treatment, including vaccines, may have some undesirable effects, so it's a personal matter to take them or not. That doesn't mean the organization is against vaccines any more than they are against surgery or painkillers.

 

Our publications have admitted many times that vaccines are a very efficient measure to prevent contagions and that they save many lives. There is no questioning that. They have included vaccines among other practical measures to avoid getting sick. Now of course every Christian has the right to decide which treatments he or she will accept.

 

Those vaccines were developed over a matter of years though. This one seems rushed. A whole lot about this pandemic seems off and like it has ulterior motives to me. I don't trust that vaccine. I'm just being honest.

Edited October 26, 2020 by runner92

[Qapla]

There hasn't been a vaccine released for me to "trust" ... when it is released, if it is "rushed", I'm not sure I will trust a rushed vaccine, either - then again, I don't trust the virus ... it is very lethal and infectious

 

Guess that is why we need to wait and see what and when they develop a vaccine and each of us must decide for ourselves - without trying yo sway others to adopt whatever our view is ... 

Edited October 26, 2020 by Qapla

[carlos]

22 hours ago, runner92 said:

Those vaccines were developed over a matter of years though. This one seems rushed. A whole lot about this pandemic seems off and like it has ulterior motives to me. I don't trust that vaccine. I'm just being honest.

I feel the same as you Gabby. It's not the vaccine itself but the fact that it's being approved in a hurry. It's been tested for several months with many thousands of people, so it seems clear it's not dangerous in the short term. But we don't know which effects it can have in the long term.

 

On the other hand, it's just another vaccine, and the process to produce it is similar to any other coronavirus vaccine. If you took the flu shot and didn't have any bad reaction, there's no reason why you should have it with this one.

 

We will have to wait and see. But I won't be the first one in the queue, at least if I am allowed to decide.

Edited October 26, 2020 by carlos

[vern]

Its also new tech rna something or other.....

Some say it can be quite dangerous...

[McKay]

2 hours ago, vern said:

Some

Reputable?

[runner92]

On 10/26/2020 at 6:42 PM, vern said:

Its also new tech rna something or other.....

Some say it can be quite dangerous...

I also saw where they said it will involve CRISPER technology. My parents just watched a documentary on that. It basically takes a part of your DNA and replaces it with new genetic material. They said it can be used to cut out genes for cancer and other illness. So what are they cutting out and putting in with this vaccine? I’m trying to do more research on it. 

[Hope]

2 hours ago, runner92 said:

I also saw where they said it will involve CRISPER technology. My parents just watched a documentary on that. It basically takes a part of your DNA and replaces it with new genetic material. They said it can be used to cut out genes for cancer and other illness. So what are they cutting out and putting in with this vaccine? I’m trying to do more research on it. 

Interesting article here:  https://www.brinknews.com/crispr-and-the-fight-against-covid-19/

[carlos]

10 hours ago, runner92 said:

I also saw where they said it will involve CRISPER technology. My parents just watched a documentary on that. It basically takes a part of your DNA and replaces it with new genetic material. They said it can be used to cut out genes for cancer and other illness. So what are they cutting out and putting in with this vaccine? I’m trying to do more research on it. 

 

7 hours ago, Hope said:

Interesting article here:  https://www.brinknews.com/crispr-and-the-fight-against-covid-19/

That article Hope quoted is very interesting. That CRISPR technology allows geneticists to alter some DNA sequences in cells. But, if I am understanding it well, it's not our DNA what would be modified.

 

The article mentions several possibilities, although none of these are being used in the vaccines being developed currently. For example, when our body fights the virus, our immune system produces some specific antibodies named B cells against it. This CRISPR technology would allow scientists to produce those cells outside our body and then inject them in us. That is, instead of injecting a weakened sample of the virus as they do now and let our body produce the antibodies, they would directly inject the antibodies. That would not alter our DNA. Another possibility would be to alter the virus' own RNA so that it stops being harmful.

 

Of course, all of this is theoretic, none of this is possible at this point.

[Naturale]

On 10/24/2020 at 1:03 AM, Qapla said:

So, regardless if we are in favor of vaccinations or against them, we should not try to present/portray/slant/state/imply our comments on the subject in such a way as to infer that a choice other than the one we hold is wrong.

 

We should not post comments in such a way that is seems or comes across like we are trying to get anyone to change their mind/view to agree with our own view - or that people "just don't understand" if they do not agree with us.

 

 

 Those of us who choose not to have vaccinations have been called "anti-vaxxer" in areas of this site.  I had never heard of the expression until I came on this site.  It is a worldly expression used in a derogatory and negative way.  I feel it should not be used on this site against fellow witness who make the decision not to have vaccinations.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Naturale

[Naturale]

On 10/23/2020 at 2:17 AM, McKay said:

On this subject of vaccine safety, may I ask a very simple question of our dear brothers and sisters. While it is true that many anti-vax stories are prevelant on Facebook, we should be wary of trusting these stories. Why? Well, if the anti-Vax movement had any credibility at all, don't you think the GB would warn us about the potential danger? The last article on vaccinations was from 1993 where it was emphasized that protecting our family is a serious responsibility before Jehovah - and that was in the context of TAKING vaccines! The mere silence from the GB on this issue should make all of us question whether believing anti-vax stories is wise.

 

 A witness deciding not to have vaccinations has not been influenced by the anti-vax movement.  To have or not to have vaccinations is simply a personal matter, a personal choice.  A person who chooses not to have vaccinations is not labelled as an anti-vaxxer by our organisation.

 

The silence from the organisation for the last 15 years or so  is because they appreciate there is so very much more  involved in this issue and so they no longer emphasise taking vaccinations.  A person simply makes their own decisions on matters such as this.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Naturale

[Qapla]

1 hour ago, Naturale said:

 I feel it should not be used on this site against fellow witness who make the decision not to have vaccinations.

 

42 minutes ago, Naturale said:

A person who chooses not to have vaccinations is not labelled as an anti-vaxxer by our organization ...  A person simply makes their own decisions on matters such as this.

 

Yes, it is a personal decision when it comes to vaccinations - each should make their own and not judge others for how they decide.

 

That said, if we do not want to be considered a "pro-vaxxer" or an "anti-vaxxer" we should be careful how we post. We do not want our posts to sound like we are trying to convince others that they need to see it from "our view", regardless of what our view is. When we constantly post "facts" (as we see them) or "support articles" to "prove our point" or debate every comment made by others - we tend to come across as either "pro" or "anti" vaccination.

 

Susanna, I am not saying you did this.  It is just that many of the posts in this thread come off as "trying to convince others" one way or the other. They seem to say, "If you only knew the truth you would agree with me" (or sentiment to that effect) - and this goes for both sides of this issue.

 

Let's try not to be judgmental in this thread (or any thread on this site) and try to "push our view" as the "right way" - please     

 

 

[McKay]

1 hour ago, Naturale said:

I feel it should not be used on this site against fellow witness who make the decision not to have vaccinations.

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by McKay
Nevermind

[Naturale]

1 hour ago, Qapla said:

 

 

Yes, it is a personal decision when it comes to vaccinations - each should make their own and not judge others for how they decide.

 

That said, if we do not want to be considered a "pro-vaxxer" or an "anti-vaxxer" we should be careful how we post. We do not want our posts to sound like we are trying to convince others that they need to see it from "our view", regardless of what our view is. When we constantly post "facts" (as we see them) or "support articles" to "prove our point" or debate every comment made by others - we tend to come across as either "pro" or "anti" vaccination.

 

Susanna, I am not saying you did this.  It is just that many of the posts in this thread come off as "trying to convince others" one way or the other. They seem to say, "If you only knew the truth you would agree with me" (or sentiment to that effect) - and this goes for both sides of this issue.

 

Let's try not to be judgmental in this thread (or any thread on this site) and try to "push our view" as the "right way" - please     

 

 

Yes agreed.  The fact is though that looking at the posts on this site in the areas where vaccinations are discussed, it seems very one sided as it's all ok when people state as fact that vaccinations are safe and effective and yet when someone else questions the safety and effectiveness they are wrong and misguided somehow.  Some are saying that our organisation supports vaccinations when the reality is that our organisation hasn't said anything for at least 15 years (as far as I can see).  Our organisation simply says that it is a personal decision.
 

[Shawnster]

2 hours ago, Naturale said:

 A witness deciding not to have vaccinations has not been influenced by the anti-vax movement.  To have or not to have vaccinations is simply a personal matter, a personal choice.  A person who chooses not to have vaccinations is not labelled as an anti-vaxxer by our organisation.

We are all influenced by what we read or watch.  We are also influenced by our friends.  It's only logical to conclude that some Witnesses are, indeed, influenced by the anti-vax movement.  Actually, it's completely logical to state that all Witnesses who have reached this personal decision have done so only after researching the pros and cons which would including reading information that highlights the dangers of vaccines.  Such information is, by definition, anti-vaxxer information.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Shawnster

[Naturale]

17 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

We are all influenced by what we read or watch.  We are also influenced by our friends.  It's only logical to conclude that some Witnesses are, indeed, influenced by the anti-vax movement.  Actually, it's completely logical to state that all Witnesses who have reached this personal decision have done so only after researching the pros and cons which would including reading information that highlights the dangers of vaccines.  Such information is, by definition, anti-vaxxer information.

For me I was simply brought up with natural health.

 

Anti-vaxxer is a new worldly term.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Naturale

[Fallbrookian]

8 minutes ago, Naturale said:

For me I was simply brought up with natural health.

Same here Susanna, and I was never influenced by friends or the media on the vaccination issue.  It was my mother who taught me natural health.  

[Shawnster]

25 minutes ago, Naturale said:

For me I was simply brought up with natural health.

 

Anti-vaxxer is a new worldly term.

And I'm sure you have read and researched.  You've even shared links to websites here.  My point is even you have received external input that has shaped your view.

[Naturale]

22 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

And I'm sure you have read and researched.  You've even shared links to websites here.  My point is even you have received external input that has shaped your view.

I was brought up with a good understanding of natural health.  This was normal in the rural area I lived in at that time.  Yes I have since read and researched about health for years but I am not and have not been influenced by the anti-vax movement. 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by Naturale

[Hope]

What's wrong with being pro- or anti-vaxx, really? When it comes down to it? It's a personal decision, not requiring anyone's support, right?  Are either of those expressions derogatory? 

 

Do what you feel is right and own it. If someone thinks we're nutty for our own decisions, I think we're all mature enough to let that roll off. I am, at least.. 🤔

[carlos]

9 hours ago, Naturale said:

Yes agreed.  The fact is though that looking at the posts on this site in the areas where vaccinations are discussed, it seems very one sided as it's all ok when people state as fact that vaccinations are safe and effective and yet when someone else questions the safety and effectiveness they are wrong and misguided somehow.  Some are saying that our organisation supports vaccinations when the reality is that our organisation hasn't said anything for at least 15 years (as far as I can see).  Our organisation simply says that it is a personal decision.

The Slave is not a medical counselor and their role is not to promote any medical treatment. When talking about treatments our publications will always make it clear that every Christian must decide by himself. Yet the Slave has mentioned vaccines many times and always positively. Accepting a vaccine or not is a personal decision. But that vaccines are safe and effective is a fact. For example, have a look at this quotation from 2019:

 

Quote

*** wp19 No. 3 p. 5 The Search for Long Life ***
Not all scientists agree that antiaging treatments can prolong human life far beyond what is attainable today. True, human life expectancy has steadily increased since the 19th century. But this is mainly due to better hygiene, successful measures against infectious diseases, and the use of antibiotics and vaccines.

The Watchtower is acknowledging here that vaccines, together with hygiene, antibiotics and other measures, have contributed to the spectacular increase in life expectancy. And this was less than one year ago.

 

Quote

*** w15 3/1 p. 3 Why We Need to Be Saved ***
Scientists have developed vaccines and medications that have subdued some diseases.

This is from 2015. Vaccines have subdued some diseases. There is no questioning that. Smallpox used to kill 5 millions victims yearly. After the global vaccination campaign the number of victims has been 0. It has been completely eradicated. When I was a child all children at some point were sick with mumps, measles, rubella... All those have completely disappeared in the lands where the population underwent massive vaccination, and only reappear when someone brings them in from abroad. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.

 

Quote

*** g 1/07 p. 4 Will Science Cure the World? ***
According to the United Nations Children’s Fund, if countries achieve their goals, “by 2015, more than 70 million children who live in the world’s poorest countries will receive each year life-saving vaccines against the following diseases: tuberculosis, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, rubella, yellow fever, haemophilus influenzae type B, hepatitis B, polio, rotavirus, pneumococcus, meningococcus, and Japanese encephalitis.”

This is from 2007. "Life-saving vaccines" is as unambiguous as it gets. As you see all comments are positive. You won't find an article in the Watchtower Library saying that vaccines are useless or harmful simply because all the scientific evidence points against that. Our publications are not "neutral" in that sense. They accept the scientific evidence.

 

You can choose not to accept vaccines, and that's fine. You can have a cancer and decide to treat it with herbs. That's your choice, you can do as you wish. We can discuss the bad reactions to a vaccine that happen once in a hundred thousand cases. We can talk about that person in a million who contracted the virus and died as a result of the vaccine, or who was given a vaccine in bad condition. All of that is true. But to deny at this point the effectiveness of vaccines is like questioning the Holocaust or saying the earth is flat. It belongs in the realm of conspiracy theories.

 

Edited October 29, 2020 by carlos

[Naturale]

11 hours ago, carlos said:

You can choose not to accept vaccines, and that's fine. You can have a cancer and decide to treat it with herbs. That's your choice, you can do as you wish. We can discuss the bad reactions to a vaccine that happen once in a hundred thousand cases. We can talk about that person in a million who contracted the virus and died as a result of the vaccine, or who was given a vaccine in bad condition. All of that is true. But to deny at this point the effectiveness of vaccines is like questioning the Holocaust or saying the earth is flat. It belongs in the realm of conspiracy theories.

 

Well, it is  more than condescending to say it is like "questioning the Holocaust or saying the earth is flat". No the vaccine issue does not "belong in the realm of conspiracy theories" at all, that is a seriously misguided statement.  Your comment is very condemning and shows no respect.

Edited October 29, 2020 by Naturale