Does a Moderna vaccinated person cause harm to a non vaccinated person?

Lollipop2

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
5,267
As the title asks. Will a Moderna vaccinated person harm a non vaccinated person? I read that since there is no live virus, there is no harm. But this answer doesn’t sit well with me intuitively.

Does anyone know? @Giraffe @haidut @LeeLemonoil

Does anyone have any links for further reading?

Thank you in advance.
 

Regina

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
6,511
Location
Chicago
+1 Lollipop

As an aside, I always avoided dog parks for a couple of weeks in Chicago when they would do a big Bordatella vaccine campaign. (which they did every few years). News would come out of dogs dropping like flies from bordatella and then stores saying they required the vaccine. Lines outside Vet clinics formed during the aggressive campaign.

I didn't really understand "viral shedding" but went with my gut to keep my dog away from recently vaccinated dogs. I don't understand the mechnism of "miasm".

Time to understand it better.
 

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
There is an article that suggests that vaccines might harm the unvaccinated.

In Rush to Create Magic-Bullet COVID Vaccines, Have We Made Matters Worse?

When a virus infects a population of humans, only those viruses that have a living human host will survive. If a virus is so pathogenic that it kills the human it infected, it dies too.

Therefore, mortality of the host kills the most severe forms of any virus over time. Infection rates may go up, but mortality goes down.

In a 2015 study published in PLOS Biology, researchers hypothesized that vaccination can subvert this process by allowing more virulent (i.e., more pathogenic and potentially deadly) strains of viruses to live in vaccinated hosts for prolonged time periods without killing the hosts.

These vaccinated hosts, while infected, shed and spread virus, causing further transmission of the disease.

There might be simpler explanations, though:

  • If someone has obvious symptoms you would stay away. If symptoms are altered or suppressed by the vaccines you maybe won't.
  • I seems that in imunocompromised individuals bugs can mutate to more virulent forms. (I think that freshly vaccinated people are imunocompromised.)

Related thread:

We tend to think of certain diseases as pretty much always being severe (smallpox, polio, etc.). But, there is some fascinating research out there that has shown that the severity of a disease (viral at least) can be affected by a host's nutritional status. And that the health of the host can actually change the viral genome, as though there's two-way communication.
 
OP
L

Lollipop2

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
5,267
There is an article that suggests that vaccines might harm the unvaccinated.

In Rush to Create Magic-Bullet COVID Vaccines, Have We Made Matters Worse?



There might be simpler explanations, though:

  • If someone has obvious symptoms you would stay away. If symptoms are altered or suppressed by the vaccines you maybe won't.
  • I seems that in imunocompromised individuals bugs can mutate to more virulent forms. (I think that freshly vaccinated people are imunocompromised.)

Related thread:
Thank you @Giraffe and @Regina. I am concerned because my clients have gotten the Moderna vaccine (they are in health care) and I had to work with her two days later and didn’t know she had the vaccine until half way through our session. I am trying to figure out how to protect myself as I still need to work with them. I think Giraffe answered it: stay healthy and keep my immune system strong.
 

LucyL

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
1,244
If you have kids after getting the vaccine, I think there is a good chance they or their children will be harmed.
 

StephanF

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
707
Location
Reno
My sister-in-law is a x-ray nurse here in Reno. She got vaccinated against COVID-19 on Wednesday Dec. 30th. On the following Sunday, her daughter came down with COVID and then my sister-in-law came down with it maybe Wednesday, so a week later, and tested positive on Thursday last week. My immediate thought was: 'did she infect her daughter?', when I heard that her daughter got sick. But that was before she herself came down with COVID. Maybe the vaccine was not effective enough, it was her first 'shot'. Also I wonder: do people that got vaccinated test positive to COVID? I heard that they may test positive for HIV, which is also not very comforting.
 

StephanF

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
707
Location
Reno
A couple of days ago, I watched the news on German TV (via Internet) and there was a report on the outbreak of the new Covid-19 strain in the UK. It seems really bad over there, the hospitals are getting close to capacity. There was a comment that if they can't get everyone vaccinated quickly, then a strain may evolve that is resistant to the current vaccine. I think that this is impossible to avoid. One would have to vaccinate the WHOLE WORLD in a matter of weeks and then the development of a new strain is not guaranteed. It's all statistics but I don't have a clue how the bets stand...
 

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
A couple of days ago, I watched the news on German TV (via Internet) and there was a report on the outbreak of the new Covid-19 strain in the UK. It seems really bad over there, the hospitals are getting close to capacity.

German mainstream media are terrible fear mongers. Their reports are incomplete at best. Germany has closed 20 hospitals in the last couple of months. Why are we closing hospitals while we are supposedly in the middle of a pandemic? How is it justified to destroy the economy while hospitals are being closed? MSM don't report about it, and they don't ask questions.

"Close to capacity" must be seen in context. Hospitals always plan with occupancies of 80-90% because they want to operate economically. The picture below it taken from a BBC article. According to the article the total number of hospital beds in England has been reduced in order to better protect the patients.


Covid: How busy are hospitals in England? - BBC News

1610398201586.png
 

StephanF

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
707
Location
Reno
German mainstream media are terrible fear mongers. Their reports are incomplete at best. Germany has closed 20 hospitals in the last couple of months. Why are we closing hospitals while we are supposedly in the middle of a pandemic? How is it justified to destroy the economy while hospitals are being closed? MSM don't report about it, and they don't ask questions.

"Close to capacity" must be seen in context. Hospitals always plan with occupancies of 80-90% because they want to operate economically. The picture below it taken from a BBC article. According to the article the total number of hospital beds in England has been reduced in order to better protect the patients.


Covid: How busy are hospitals in England? - BBC News
Thanks for the statistics!
 
Joined
Feb 15, 2018
Messages
313
As the title asks. Will a Moderna vaccinated person harm a non vaccinated person? I read that since there is no live virus, there is no harm. But this answer doesn’t sit well with me intuitively.

Does anyone know? @Giraffe @haidut @LeeLemonoil

Does anyone have any links for further reading?

Thank you in advance.
Dr. David Martin:
”Let’s make sure we are clear… This is not a vaccine. They are using the term “vaccine” to sneak this thing under public health exemptions. This is not a vaccine.”

”This is mRNA packaged in a fat envelope that is delivered to a cell. It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator. It is not a vaccine. Vaccines actually are a legally defined term under public health law; they are a legally defined term under CDC and FDA standards [1]. And the vaccine specifically has to stimulate both the immunity within the person receiving it and it also has to disrupt transmission.

And that is not what this is. They (Moderna and Pfizer) have been abundantly clear in saying that the mRNA strand that is going into the cell is not to stop the transmission, it is a treatment. But if it was discussed as a treatment, it would not get the sympathetic ear of public health authorities because then people would say, “What other treatments are there?”

The use of the term vaccine is unconscionable for both the legal definition and also it is actually the sucker punch to open and free discourse… Moderna was started as a chemotherapy company for cancer, not a vaccine manufacturer for S.A.R.S.COV.2. If we said we are going to give people prophylactic chemotherapy for the cancer they don’t yet have, we’d be laughed out of the room because it’s a stupid idea. That’s exactly what this is. This is a mechanical device in the form of a very small package of technology that is being inserted into the human system to activate the cell to become a pathogen manufacturing site.

And I refuse to stipulate in any conversations that this is in fact a vaccine issue. The only reason why the term is being used is to abuse the 1905 Jacobson case that has been misrepresented since it was written. And if we were honest with this, we would actually call it what it is: it is a chemical pathogen device that is actually meant to unleash a chemical pathogen production action within a cell. It is a medical device, not a drug because it meets the CDRH definition of a device. It is not a living system, it is not a biologic system, it is a physical technology – it happens to just come in the size of a molecular package.

So, we need to be really clear on making sure we don’t fall for their game. Because their game is if we talk about it as a vaccine then we are going to get into a vaccine conversation but this is not, by their own admission, a vaccine. As a result it must be clear to everyone listening that we will not fall for this failed definition just like we will not fall for their industrial chemical definition of health. Both of them are functionally flawed and are an implicit violation of the legal construct that is being exploited. I get frustrated when I hear activists and lawyers say, “we are going to fight the vaccine”. If you stipulate it’s a vaccine you’ve already lost the battle. It’s not a vaccine. It is made to make you sick."

Again, you are calling my views, "paranoid and sad" on my page. And you know absolutely nothing about me, the roots of Lyme Disease, what happened to me... How they create and deflate illnesses for profit, the crimes involving the cover-up that began in the 70s and continues today. You do not have a clue, Cindy. Your education consists of doctors whom have been trained by pharmaceutical companies. Your textbooks are produced by pharmaceutical companies. This virus has been produced for the benefit of pharmaceutical companies. I have spent a lifetime watching how this works and how it affects innocent human beings. You have no idea. And I hope you never do. Just keep sitting in front of your TV set doing what you are told. Just preaching to people who don't want your advice.
 
OP
L

Lollipop2

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
5,267
Dr. David Martin:
”Let’s make sure we are clear… This is not a vaccine. They are using the term “vaccine” to sneak this thing under public health exemptions. This is not a vaccine.”

”This is mRNA packaged in a fat envelope that is delivered to a cell. It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator. It is not a vaccine. Vaccines actually are a legally defined term under public health law; they are a legally defined term under CDC and FDA standards [1]. And the vaccine specifically has to stimulate both the immunity within the person receiving it and it also has to disrupt transmission.

And that is not what this is. They (Moderna and Pfizer) have been abundantly clear in saying that the mRNA strand that is going into the cell is not to stop the transmission, it is a treatment. But if it was discussed as a treatment, it would not get the sympathetic ear of public health authorities because then people would say, “What other treatments are there?”

The use of the term vaccine is unconscionable for both the legal definition and also it is actually the sucker punch to open and free discourse… Moderna was started as a chemotherapy company for cancer, not a vaccine manufacturer for S.A.R.S.COV.2. If we said we are going to give people prophylactic chemotherapy for the cancer they don’t yet have, we’d be laughed out of the room because it’s a stupid idea. That’s exactly what this is. This is a mechanical device in the form of a very small package of technology that is being inserted into the human system to activate the cell to become a pathogen manufacturing site.

And I refuse to stipulate in any conversations that this is in fact a vaccine issue. The only reason why the term is being used is to abuse the 1905 Jacobson case that has been misrepresented since it was written. And if we were honest with this, we would actually call it what it is: it is a chemical pathogen device that is actually meant to unleash a chemical pathogen production action within a cell. It is a medical device, not a drug because it meets the CDRH definition of a device. It is not a living system, it is not a biologic system, it is a physical technology – it happens to just come in the size of a molecular package.

So, we need to be really clear on making sure we don’t fall for their game. Because their game is if we talk about it as a vaccine then we are going to get into a vaccine conversation but this is not, by their own admission, a vaccine. As a result it must be clear to everyone listening that we will not fall for this failed definition just like we will not fall for their industrial chemical definition of health. Both of them are functionally flawed and are an implicit violation of the legal construct that is being exploited. I get frustrated when I hear activists and lawyers say, “we are going to fight the vaccine”. If you stipulate it’s a vaccine you’ve already lost the battle. It’s not a vaccine. It is made to make you sick."

Again, you are calling my views, "paranoid and sad" on my page. And you know absolutely nothing about me, the roots of Lyme Disease, what happened to me... How they create and deflate illnesses for profit, the crimes involving the cover-up that began in the 70s and continues today. You do not have a clue, Cindy. Your education consists of doctors whom have been trained by pharmaceutical companies. Your textbooks are produced by pharmaceutical companies. This virus has been produced for the benefit of pharmaceutical companies. I have spent a lifetime watching how this works and how it affects innocent human beings. You have no idea. And I hope you never do. Just keep sitting in front of your TV set doing what you are told. Just preaching to people who don't want your advice.
OMG...how horrifying.
 

schultz

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
2,653
"Close to capacity" must be seen in context. Hospitals always plan with occupancies of 80-90% because they want to operate economically. The picture below it taken from a BBC article. According to the article the total number of hospital beds in England has been reduced in order to better protect the patients.

It's the same in Ontario. Not only are a certain percentage of hospital staff having to stay home if they have symptoms or even test positive (normally they would be working, even if a bit sick, during flu season), there are greater restrictions now regarding hospital capacity and other precautions that make thing less efficient. So everything is moving slower and there are less people working. Our premier ran on the idea that he wanted to change "hallway medicine", IE the idea that hospitals tend to be at full or over capacity every year because we have a shortage of beds. This is the norm in Ontario. So it's not something new, but everyone is pretending that it's some brand new thing that we are reaching capacity.

At the beginning of this pandemic I was reading several studies regarding Italy and I remember some articles saying their normal flu season capacity is around 97-98% so it would just take a little bump to get that over capacity, or increased regulations which would reduce hospital efficiency.
 

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
Moderna was started as a chemotherapy company for cancer, not a vaccine manufacturer for S.A.R.S.COV.2.
BioNTech too was started as a company that wanted to develop patient-specific immunotherapies for cancer patients.
 

hierundjetzt

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
239
Dr. David Martin:
”Let’s make sure we are clear… This is not a vaccine. They are using the term “vaccine” to sneak this thing under public health exemptions. This is not a vaccine.”

”This is mRNA packaged in a fat envelope that is delivered to a cell. It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator. It is not a vaccine. Vaccines actually are a legally defined term under public health law; they are a legally defined term under CDC and FDA standards [1]. And the vaccine specifically has to stimulate both the immunity within the person receiving it and it also has to disrupt transmission.

And that is not what this is. They (Moderna and Pfizer) have been abundantly clear in saying that the mRNA strand that is going into the cell is not to stop the transmission, it is a treatment. But if it was discussed as a treatment, it would not get the sympathetic ear of public health authorities because then people would say, “What other treatments are there?”

The use of the term vaccine is unconscionable for both the legal definition and also it is actually the sucker punch to open and free discourse… Moderna was started as a chemotherapy company for cancer, not a vaccine manufacturer for S.A.R.S.COV.2. If we said we are going to give people prophylactic chemotherapy for the cancer they don’t yet have, we’d be laughed out of the room because it’s a stupid idea. That’s exactly what this is. This is a mechanical device in the form of a very small package of technology that is being inserted into the human system to activate the cell to become a pathogen manufacturing site.

And I refuse to stipulate in any conversations that this is in fact a vaccine issue. The only reason why the term is being used is to abuse the 1905 Jacobson case that has been misrepresented since it was written. And if we were honest with this, we would actually call it what it is: it is a chemical pathogen device that is actually meant to unleash a chemical pathogen production action within a cell. It is a medical device, not a drug because it meets the CDRH definition of a device. It is not a living system, it is not a biologic system, it is a physical technology – it happens to just come in the size of a molecular package.

So, we need to be really clear on making sure we don’t fall for their game. Because their game is if we talk about it as a vaccine then we are going to get into a vaccine conversation but this is not, by their own admission, a vaccine. As a result it must be clear to everyone listening that we will not fall for this failed definition just like we will not fall for their industrial chemical definition of health. Both of them are functionally flawed and are an implicit violation of the legal construct that is being exploited. I get frustrated when I hear activists and lawyers say, “we are going to fight the vaccine”. If you stipulate it’s a vaccine you’ve already lost the battle. It’s not a vaccine. It is made to make you sick."

Again, you are calling my views, "paranoid and sad" on my page. And you know absolutely nothing about me, the roots of Lyme Disease, what happened to me... How they create and deflate illnesses for profit, the crimes involving the cover-up that began in the 70s and continues today. You do not have a clue, Cindy. Your education consists of doctors whom have been trained by pharmaceutical companies. Your textbooks are produced by pharmaceutical companies. This virus has been produced for the benefit of pharmaceutical companies. I have spent a lifetime watching how this works and how it affects innocent human beings. You have no idea. And I hope you never do. Just keep sitting in front of your TV set doing what you are told. Just preaching to people who don't want your advice.
In most European countries people are getting older and older, meaning that pensioners are getting their pensions for a much longer time than the pension scheme 's resources can handle. That is one of the reasons why Merkel insisted in welcoming all those refugees to Germany because she knew that more young people were needed in the future to pay for the pension scheme. Could it possibly be that by injecting this "vaccine" or pathogen production device, the governments are ensuring the timely deaths of the elderly as well programming the timely deaths of the future generations so that the overburdening of the pension schemes would not be a pressing problem anymore?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom