I don't disagree with you at all about the nefarious if not outright criminal behavior of the government on this. BUT as far as this immunization illegitimately using the term "vaccine", you are off base. A quick look at the wikipedia article on vaccines, under "Types", will reveal that, long before the messenger RNA vaccine idea came along, there have been a host of different "vaccines" that used various components of bacteria or viruses, or their products (eg: tetanus toxoid which is inactivated toxin that is secreted by the tetanus bacteria). So what is novel here is not that they were "vaccinating" with less than a whole, killed or inactivated virus, but rather the particular component* of the virus they were using (messenger RNA) had not been given a large scale trial before (before it was done on the unsuspecting public who thought they were getting a treatment and not being subjects in a clinical trial!). *the mRNA used, whether is is synthesized or not, can be considered "part" of the target virus because it is the essential code (or instructions) for MAKING that part of the virus and was created originally (whether copied or not) with the target virus. What is unique to this concept is having the HOST cell use foreign mRNA to manufacture the desired immunogenic foreign protein. SO, bottom line: THIS is NOT an example of Liberal-Progressive use of the Orwellian technique of changing the meaning of the word. Calling this a "vaccine" is a legitimate as calling your tetanus shot, etc., a "vaccine."
I knew it was mRNA from the get-go. How did you not? This fact was not hidden. The people I know who got vaxxed knew too. They did the research on mRNA and felt confident with it.
It was not a secret that it was mRNA. All anyone had to do was google "nRNA" and find out what that technology is. There was no conspiracy to keep it hidden.
Well actually they did "keep it hidden" by mis-labeling it as "vaccine". Again, that's the point of the article. No you didn't have to look very hard to learn what it really was, but the medical authorities know that the majority of us will never bother to seek out information about what we're being injected with.
Given the evolution of the usage of the word "vaccine" since the 1790s, this IS properly a "vaccine" as much as, for instance, tetanus or meningococcus vaccines are (containing only parts of the infectious agent). What is novel here is using foreign mRNA coding to create the immunogenic foreign protein that immunizes. Of course the criminal behavior of some of the human actors in this whole thing is somewhat novel, but hardly unique!
Excellent! Never took the poison clot shot… never took the fake PCR test either
Thank you David Ziffer for sharing the truth!
IT BEGINS: Kansas Sues Pfizer — State Alleges Company Knew of ‘Serious Adverse Events’ Yet Marketed COVID-19 Vaccine as ‘Safe’: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/06/it-begins-kansas-sues-pfizer-state-alleges-company/
I don't disagree with you at all about the nefarious if not outright criminal behavior of the government on this. BUT as far as this immunization illegitimately using the term "vaccine", you are off base. A quick look at the wikipedia article on vaccines, under "Types", will reveal that, long before the messenger RNA vaccine idea came along, there have been a host of different "vaccines" that used various components of bacteria or viruses, or their products (eg: tetanus toxoid which is inactivated toxin that is secreted by the tetanus bacteria). So what is novel here is not that they were "vaccinating" with less than a whole, killed or inactivated virus, but rather the particular component* of the virus they were using (messenger RNA) had not been given a large scale trial before (before it was done on the unsuspecting public who thought they were getting a treatment and not being subjects in a clinical trial!). *the mRNA used, whether is is synthesized or not, can be considered "part" of the target virus because it is the essential code (or instructions) for MAKING that part of the virus and was created originally (whether copied or not) with the target virus. What is unique to this concept is having the HOST cell use foreign mRNA to manufacture the desired immunogenic foreign protein. SO, bottom line: THIS is NOT an example of Liberal-Progressive use of the Orwellian technique of changing the meaning of the word. Calling this a "vaccine" is a legitimate as calling your tetanus shot, etc., a "vaccine."
I knew it was mRNA from the get-go. How did you not? This fact was not hidden. The people I know who got vaxxed knew too. They did the research on mRNA and felt confident with it.
I don't recall indicating that I didn't know it was mRNA. In fact my knowledge of that fact was the basis of my decision not to mess with it.
"3. they had no idea what was in the injections."
Yup. that one is what the whole article is about.
It was not a secret that it was mRNA. All anyone had to do was google "nRNA" and find out what that technology is. There was no conspiracy to keep it hidden.
Well actually they did "keep it hidden" by mis-labeling it as "vaccine". Again, that's the point of the article. No you didn't have to look very hard to learn what it really was, but the medical authorities know that the majority of us will never bother to seek out information about what we're being injected with.
Given the evolution of the usage of the word "vaccine" since the 1790s, this IS properly a "vaccine" as much as, for instance, tetanus or meningococcus vaccines are (containing only parts of the infectious agent). What is novel here is using foreign mRNA coding to create the immunogenic foreign protein that immunizes. Of course the criminal behavior of some of the human actors in this whole thing is somewhat novel, but hardly unique!
Everyone's online. mRNA was in mainstream television news. People knew and had no problem with it.