Covid19 vaccine, will we know how it's made

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Therefore the selection of who got the HCQ treatment and who didn’t was influenced by the doctors’ knowledge of the patient’s condition.

Hmm, “a 50 percent reduction in deaths among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. After day one of the treatment, a whopping 82 percent of patients began to recover.”

They were likely going to recover anyway. Most people do. Without any treatment whatsoever. There is no justification for attributing their recovery to taking HCQ.

when you read about the Henry Ford study through the lens of some biased reporter, you will read conclusions drawn from the study that the authors of the study did not intend. My advice with such studies is to skip the pre-digested analysis, especially when it comes from a source with an ax to grind, and go straight to the original unbiased paper.

Unbiased original paper, really?

Well, yes. I’m referring to the Henry Ford Hospital paper itself. How can you get more unbiased than that when talking about the Henry Ford Hospital paper.

This article is about a study…

I don’t have time to read fake news websites like covexit. Who are they? Please cite authoritative sources only. Citing sources that have no indication of who is behind them is like trusting something you read on the walls of a public restroom.

 

[Joegrane]

I don’t have time to read fake news websites like covexit. Who are they?

Fellow members of our group could check out articles on covexit.com and form an opinion about whether LeafByNiggle or me is spinning the truth. One of us might be a troll for some agenda–Big Pharma, Gospel values, etc.

You’ll notice that covexit.com interviews the researchers and presents summaries and background information about their work.

Most people don’t have the training to interpret the data expressed in research papers, for example OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06-0.5 p<0.001

Many papers don’t translate that into a description that average folks can interpret.

However the Derwand, Zelenko study of hydroxychloroquine in outpatients did.

“4 of 141 treated patients (2.8%) were hospitalized,
which was significantly less (p<0.001) compared with 58 of 377 untreated patients
(15.4%) (odds ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.06-0.5). Therefore, the odds of hospitalization of
treated patients were 84% less than in the untreated group.”

You could go to covexit.com if you want to hear interviews with Dr Zelenko.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You’ll notice that covexit.com interviews the researchers and presents summaries and background information about their work.

You will also notice that covexit, unlike all reputable (and even some disreputable) websites, does not say who they are.

Also the argument that goes like “read the articles and see if they make sense to you” is not they way to find truth. There is nothing to be gained from reading something that you already know (except confirming your existing bias) and reading something that you don’t know is not something that one can judge for themselves. That is why we rely one the reputation of these sources. I know it is out of fashion these days to talk about authority (which is really strange in a Catholic forum, given the Catholic Church’s authoritative claims) but there really is some value to it. Authority matters. When you read something where you know nothing about the author, you might just as well be reading graffiti on the subway.

 

[Metis2]

When you make a medication (not a supplement) regulations in the U.S. and most countries require full disclosure of how the vaccine was developed. Vaccines can be made more than one way, so we should not jump to conclusions as to how it is currently being developed. That being said, if your issue is that the vaccine will be made with fetal tissue or fetal cells, then remember that these can be obtained in a way that does not go against your beliefs. Don’t assume much at this point, the best you can do is wait for now. Because Covid-19 is such a widespread disease, there is a good chance that it will be made in a way that will not conflict with people’s beliefs and moral stances. But again, we are still waiting, therefore I suggest not focusing on this particular issue at this time.

 

[LilyM]

ZemD:

If the person who died was not an organ donor or did not have a will that mentioned he wished his body to be donated to science, yes I would consider the harvesting of his organs and tissue immoral.

This is a relevant issue and I wonder how hospitals approach the handling of aborted fetuses. Who has what legal rights?

Presumably, as with born children or minors who pass away, parents are able to consent to donation or scientific procedures in relation to fetal tissue.

 

[NSmith]

The Vatican document from 2005 is very good, but here is the summary at the end for those who did not click the link:

• there is a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection with regard to those which have moral problems;
• as regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one’s own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole - especially for pregnant women;
• the lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extrema ratio due to the necessity to provide for the good of one’s children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant women);
• such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk. This is an unjust alternative choice, which must be eliminated as soon as possible

 

[esieffe]

I don’t know if anyone has heard, but Russia has released a new vaccine in the middle of it’s phase III clinical trials. I guess it take a while for the west to analyze it, but the speed in which it was created makes you wonder if they haven’t taken the fetal tissue shortcut.

 

[Montrose]

I don’t know if anyone has heard, but Russia has released a new vaccine in the middle of it’s phase III clinical trials. I guess it take a while for the west to analyze it, but the speed in which it was created makes you wonder if they haven’t taken the fetal tissue shortcut.

I’m ignorant of how the process works so how it is a shortcut to producing a vaccine by using fetal tissue.

 

[esieffe]

Im just as ignorant as you are Im afraid, however I read an article a while ago that explained one of the attractions of using aborted fetal tissue is that it sped up the development of a vaccine. Since I can’t remember the source, it wouldn’t hurt to shelf the idea, but it does make sense.
I shouldn’t have to add of course that would utterly disqualify me from taking that vaccine if true.

 

[Montrose]

Im just as ignorant as you are Im afraid, however I read an article a while ago that explained one of the attractions of using aborted fetal tissue is that it sped up the development of a vaccine. Since I can’t remember the source, it wouldn’t hurt to shelf the idea, but it does make sense.
I shouldn’t have to add of course that would utterly disqualify me from taking that vaccine if true.

You wouldn’t take such a vaccine if there is an alternative that did not involve fetal tissue and hopefully with so many vaccines under trial we will get that.
However, remember that if there would be no alternative the Church allows you to use such a vaccine.

 

[Marianne321]

Please watch this video regarding new vaccine. (13) SHOCKER!!! New Content Of Bill Gate Vaccine Exposed - YouTube

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Please don’t. It is just one person’s far-out opinion whose only qualification is that she owns a webcam. You would be better off reading graffiti in public restrooms.

 

[Marianne321]

It’s a brave doctor who says this & many people including doctors have major concerns & have been censored off the internet. People should watch the video & make up their own mind. It’s not only one persons far out opinion at all.

Also here are some other video’s people should definitely watch:

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It’s a brave doctor who says this & many people including doctors have major concerns & have been censored off the internet.

That’s because it is fake news and harmful misinformation.

People should watch the video…

People should first evaluate the qualifications of the source before they waste their time watching misinformation from a conspiracy theorist.

 

[Marianne321]

You do realise that information is getting censored everywhere & you can’t trust mainsteam media like CNN that’s a propaganda wing of the Democrat party & other bought interests! Independent media are the true media & citizen media that often show you their research & connections. The likes of Snopes for example that is a supposed fact checker are all in the same network & propaganda machine, evidence of this has been shown in independent media video’s which you refuse to watch saying it’s a waste of time because it’s not mainsteam which you obviously trust.

Conservatives/Christians are especially being censored online & people asking questions & questioning the official narrative & progressive ideology is often labelled as harmful & censored. This is totalitarian stuff plus if you control the information people see you control the population. To make an informed decision people need to see when information is hidden & make up their own mind!

The video I shared was not harmful. It was eye opening & it’s a shame you didn’t even watch the video & listen to what those doctors had to say before already making your mind up in advance that it was wrong.

On another note this Documentary isn’t about vaccines but about the Government & corruption & an independent journalist just got arrested for it & everyone should see it:

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You do realise that information is getting censored everywhere

Not reputable news. It is not being censored.

& you can’t trust mainsteam media like CNN

Then you certainly can’t trust what some random lady with a webcam says on YouTube, as you were asking us to do.

citizen media that often show you their research & connections.

No they don’t. They are notoriously unreliable as a source.

The likes of Snopes for example that is a supposed fact checker are all in the same network & propaganda machine,

Now Snopes, on the other hand, is very complete in providing all the links to original sources for everything they report on. You never have to trust Snopes because they don’t ask you to. The authoritative data speaks for itself.

Conservatives/Christians are especially being censored online

No, just the ones that spread disinformation.

To make an informed decision people need to see when information is hidden & make up their own mind!

I prefer to get my information from somewhere other than the walls of public restrooms.

 

[Marianne321]

What like the so called ‘reputable news’ (ie/ lies CNN spreads) that kind of news that isn’t censored?

I disagree with your answers & if you want to dismiss & can’t see how the nation is getting turned into a surveillance state & Orwell’s 1984 with the mass censorship/brainwashing happening then that’s your business. If you prefer to get your info from CNN & MSNBC then go ahead. What I object to is when people try & stop others seeing information. I believe people should make the choice & their own minds up. CNN spreads lies & disinformation constantly & they don’t get censored. I’ve seen plenty of times when something else has been called disinformation when it has not been because it goes against the official narrative. People should be able to debate stuff & not be shut down… end of.

 

[brown_bear]

The 2017 note emphasizes the temporal distance between the vaccine and the voluntary abortions of the 60s and 70s and says more or less: “They are so far away that there is no longer a problem, you will see that the Holy See will correct its position too” .

But this - if I understand it correctly - is far from the position of the Holy See in 2005, where, more than the many years that have passed since abortion, the intertwining of the type of material cooperation and the need for a vaccine to protect lives mattered, and with the obligation to work to change the system.

They seem to me two very different things, and frankly it seems a bit inappropriate for them to say: “You will see that the Holy See will adapt”.

For me it is a stretch: we wait for the Holy See to speak and only then will we see if it “has adapted”.

 

[mary77]

we know that scientists do transfer dna from animals to research vaccines and medicines. I remember when the epidemic of aids was taking place there were explanations that it originated in the green monkey but no one said how it crossed over to humans. It was also said the green monkeys carry this virus but it does not harm them but it indeed harms human beings. I have read documents that show vaccines were tried on individuals , for instance in chicago at welfare clinics to unsuspecting patients. Its a hard reality to digest. We live in a world with many people who dont share the same values as others and who think that its ok to put some people at risk for the sake of the " whole". or…thats what they tell themselves.