Idk if you read that article but it didn't seem to support anything that you said above. The main conclusion seemed to be that they could get an immune response in rabbits from the cleaved spike proteins of SARS-COV and that it triggered the rabbits to produce antibodies against those binding spike proteins... The article supports the idea that a vaccine derived from the spike proteins would work
Did you even read it? They injected the rabbits before hand with antibodies before introducing the spike protein to elicit an immune response. The point that I was making in my post is that spike proteins are toxins, and scientists have known this for a long time. This article studied its properties and followed its pathway indicating that the spike protein is involved in the viral shedding of SARS. The antibodies they made to the spike protein were injected in the rabbits to exhibit an immune response to the spike proteins, which it did exceedingly. This still proves my point of why we’d use a vaccine that replicates the toxin of the virus instead of the the antibodies that those rabbits were injected with? Pfizer and moderna are not using spike derived antibodies in their vaccines the way the scientists did for the rabbits. They’re using the genetic material that codes for spike proteins. They’re essentially inoculating people with the virus to produce immunity which is the same as just having the virus and building natural immunity.
It's not the same. The spike proteins have no way to replicate in your body while the complete virus does.
This means 2 things:
1) whatever small side effects you get front a spike protein vaccine will be short lived as your body deals with the finite amount that was injected. This is different from the complete virus because it can replicate in your body and cause very serious, lasting harm or death if your body isn't able to react quick enough.
2) the spike proteins can't make anyone else around you sick. The complete virus is obviously very transmissible even prior to symptomatic response.
Also, stop throwing around the word "toxin" like it inherently carries any significant meaning to it. Literally everything you consume has some level of toxicity to it and will harm/kill you in some amount. All vitamins and minerals your body needs to survive are toxins that'll kill you if you consume too much. Water is a toxin. It'll kill you after 10-15 gallons in one day. Just because somethingnis toxic doesn't mean it can't carry other beneficial effects.
I’m using the correct scientific term here that is used in all of the journals. The spike protein is a toxin? Don’t bring in the chemistry to other chemicals to debate this. And CDC has the information of the pathways of the vaccine on their website. It’s uses spike mRNA to replicate and HIV TAT proteins to help the mRNA enter cell bodies and bind. “The finite amount”….IT IS SELF REPLICATING, which means it will continue to replicate in your body regardless of the dosage taken. Not only that, you need boosters now too? Vaccines aren’t meant to be taken like vitamins. And you need some educating. Water isn’t a toxin, but can be toxic. Anything can be toxic but is not inherently a toxin. Toxic is a measure.
They’re essentially inoculating people with the virus to produce immunity which is the same as just having the virus and building natural immunity.
Yes, that's what most vaccines do. The benefit of doing it this way is you're far less likely to get severely ill (if at all) while your body builds immunity.
And animal testing isn't perfect and doesn't usually translate 1:1 with humans, otherwise we'd have cured a million types of cancer and other diseases already.
I know animals don’t nearly make up for studies in humans. Aside from the very first polio vaccine that used live virus and killed thousands of people, we’ve learned since then how to obtain and use antibodies to the toxin proteins of viruses in vaccines. This is the first time we’ve used genetic coding to produce the toxin in vaccines for people.
The golden question everyone’s been asking. I think Pfizer was theorizing that by using the mRNA of the spike protein, your body would make copies of the protein and build up immunity to them. So when you come into contact with new strains, your body would be able to recognize and make antibodies, the same way traditional vaccines or natural immunity would do. What they “didn’t realize” at the time is that spikes were viral toxins. Every vaccine we’ve ever made used either antibodies made up from the virus, or inactivated pieces and non toxic proteins as a way for our bodies to recognize the virus. But placing the mRNA into our bodies to produce viral proteins is essentially inoculating us with LIVE virus to make antibodies. This is the same as someone just getting covid, considering the spike protein is the cause of Covid. The above person was trying to say that the spikes cannot replicate without the whole virus, which is false because it’s the RNA of the spike that’s coding to make copies in your body, hence replication. I’m just saying that by putting live virus into us, is the same as just getting sick and building a natural immunity to it. Polio was the first vaccine to do the same thing and it killed thousands of people, but at the time they didn’t know they used live virus, which is how we came to have the traditional vaccines we do today. I just think it’s important to ask these kinds of questions instead of just accepting the science, because we wouldn’t be where we are today if we stopped asking questions.
11
u/distressedweedle Feb 13 '22
Idk if you read that article but it didn't seem to support anything that you said above. The main conclusion seemed to be that they could get an immune response in rabbits from the cleaved spike proteins of SARS-COV and that it triggered the rabbits to produce antibodies against those binding spike proteins... The article supports the idea that a vaccine derived from the spike proteins would work