Response to the viral link of a doctor criticizing the vaccination bill
I have already criticized the unprofessional vaccination campaign, which does not answer the criticisms and real questions raised by people who have anything to do with medicine, whether they are doctors or even health journalists, politicians etc, but also of ordinary citizens. The informed truth must be told, on the understanding of the general public. That seems to me to be the hardest part, să comunici prin cuvinte simple, without altering the meaning of the communication. I promised I would try, to the best of my knowledge, to answer such problems. I also got involved another time in vaccination campaigns. I have read some material that casts doubt on vaccines in general, I watched documentaries related to this topic, but I am far from understanding the so-called phenomenon of anti-vaccinists. But I welcome any criticism of abuses or attempted abuses in the medical system. Other criteria, such as religious ones, I'm getting over myself.
Recent, I received a material criticizing the current vaccination campaign, presented by a female doctor. I will try to answer his lordship's suspicions, as a biochemist, researchers on their way to developing drugs (I know how difficult it is logistically), with experience in pharmacology studies, with a lot of knowledge of molecular biology. I'm not an immunologist, infectious, virusolog, epidemiologist, I will limit myself to what I know...
First of all, cine vorbește în România de legea vaccinării obligatorii? I am not aware of such a thing, and in a country that went through communism, also associated with medical abuse (political prisoners considered psychotic and treated in psychiatric hospitals, abuzuri contra grupurilor etnice considerate „inferioare” de către unii așa-zis oameni de știință, and last but not least the law that prohibited abortions) this is not acceptable. Principiul liberal „fac ce vreau cu corpul meu, if they do no harm to others" applies in this case as well. My body, my choice, applied for abortions, it applies to anything. Sure it's horrible sometimes, that you don't want to see people abusing substances, that you don't want to see children who don't have access to treatments (including vaccines) because their parents don't want them. Unfortunately, in families sometimes power manifests itself discretionarily, to the detriment of the members. These are problems that must be solved. However, they should not be mandatory treatments in any situation. First of all, the laws must protect the citizen from those who have the power, apoi de alți infractori. Poate să ne facă orice hoț mai rău decât un politician? Cel puțin că nu poate fura atât, nu poate păgubi atâția oameni.
După câte știu, doar în California, ar fi fost propusă o lege de vaccinare obligatorie.
Sigur că nu sunt de acord cu așa ceva. În primul rând efectele asupra vaccinării unor copii și adulți cu contraindicații pot fi foarte grave. Și uneori apar scăpări, vaccinarea se face fără a lua în considerare contraindicațiile. If I know cases? And. Not to mention that we will never know exactly who may develop adverse reactions. We have no way. More, some side effects are not considered as such. They are family doctors, most, who say they have seen no serious side effects. And that's true to a point. But others have seen and do not want to consider them as such. Related to the case I was talking about, the GP will say that he has not seen any serious cases for the simple reason that he does not accept the vaccine connection of those symptoms.
The doctor is talking about a bill (?) which would require doctors not to talk about the adverse effects of vaccines, and pharmaceutical companies would be allowed to praise their hammer as much as they want in information campaigns, although the leaflet is full of contraindications. Well, if so, lucrurile sunt foarte grave… Această lege nu trebuie să treacă. If there is, even in the project stage.
What he says about viruses and DNA and RNA is real. They enter cells and multiply only through the cell's protein synthesis and genetic material apparatus. They are practically not alive, they are just information that is copied and multiplied by the enzymes of bacterial cells, animated, vegetable, FUNGAL. Everything that is alive is infected by the virus. And yes, viruses kind of do what the lady says. That is, they can insert themselves into the host's DNA, they can replicate together with the genome for a long time, to then activate again, to replicate separately, to leave the cell destroying it. This also happens in bacteria, in fact, the phenomenon is well studied there. When the virus leaves, it can take a piece of the host's DNA, which leads to evolution, to new characters, at least in bacteria. To bacteria, this phenomenon is exploited in order to create vectors that transfer genetic material for economic or therapeutic purposes, including for vaccines. At us, more complex beings, this happens more slowly, that our life is infinitely slower than that of a bacterium, but infections and the insertion of viral genetic material into DNA do exist, that's a major source of junk DNA. Cea mai mare parte a ADN din genomul mamiferelor e non-informațional. Traces of viral infections from millions of years ago still exist in our genome. But there's nothing wrong with that, and viral infections that will result in the maintenance of the viral material in the genome for a long time may occur anyway.
That vaccines were dependent on biological material before is again true. Păi cum s-ar fi putut replica virusurile în afara celulelor? The influenza virus is grown on embryonated chicken eggs. I saw this with my own eyes in college. I then worked with monkey kidney cells that were intended for vaccine development. That embryonic cells from aborted fetuses were also used (spontaneous) for vaccines, and, and that's true. The virus had to be grown on something.
That introducing biological material from your species or another related or less related species into the body can cause autoimmune reactions, it could be real. Immune system reactions, they clearly appear. Let's not forget transplants (câte experimente îmi vin în cap, but let's not digress). Then the link between a leaky digestive system and the risk of developing autoimmune diseases is somewhat known. In the sense that many patients with autoimmune diseases have leaky gut. A leaky digestive system means that the blood comes into contact with many antigens in the food. Sure, it's also about the microbiome...
But things in nature are not as simplified as in theory. That's what science does, simplify. But nature is not a laboratory, it's complex. And in nature, especially when she's alive, things are a hell of complexity, there are many interactions, mostly unknown. Clinical studies are needed for this. But the theory is also good, critical thinking is never too much. Clinical trials must be done on the basis of theory (how else would it be possible?).
What the doctor says about the mandatory vaccination law is downright hallucinatory. How to sanction doctors if they talk about the side effects of vaccines? How to compulsory vaccinate medical personnel? We have somehow returned to totalitarian systems?
Data on the vaccination campaign in France, which led to an increase in cases of multiple sclerosis (the data were controversial as to whether this increase was statistically significant, but some show that it does, after correcting the official data) they were somewhat known. The campaign was actually between 1994-1997, but only in 1998 the effects were seen. Mrs. Doctor is talking about 24000 new cases of multiple sclerosis, 8000 of invalidating cases. Actually, it would have been the case, according to some studies, by a contamination of the vaccine with a viral enzyme (HPB polymerase) which had that molecular similarity (molecular mimicry) with myelin basic protein (myelin and lipid, with electrical insulator function, which in fact thereby increases the speed of nerve impulse transmission).
And, we never know what will happen in the long run. Most drugs are not tested long-term on laboratory animals anyway. Studies cost money, animalele mănâncă foarte mult. But what can we talk about humans or other mammals that live a long time? On the other hand, the human immune system has some peculiarities that increase the risk of autoimmune diseases (specifically human). In the sea, to develop an autoimmune disease you need favorable genes, but the environment, with pollution of all kinds, modification of the microbiome, etc, favors in many people who have predisposing genes the appearance of these diseases. Let the vaccines also have a contribution? Studies will prove it, if they are done seriously and correctly, untouched by the many fakes in science. Anyway, the anti-sars cov II vaccines, at least those from Phizer and Moderna, is based on modern techniques, different from the historical data presented above. Problem, as seen in some links, would be that the spike protein mRNA response could be an increase in interferon that would favor the onset of autoimmune disease. If you have what, as they say, that is, on a favorable ground. But caution is still advised in such cases, and individuals with a history of vaccine reactions do not get vaccinated. For those who are afraid of a new technique, they can opt for "classic" vaccines. I'm on the market, new ones will be approved.
We must understand that medicines, including vaccines, they saved lives, they made the life span increase a lot. That many are downright poisons is again true. Aspirin itself kills every day through digestive hemorrhages.
The problem with this epidemic is, first of all, that we had no medicine, TREATMENTS, then that I didn't have a vaccine at the start of it. If an effective vaccine against Sars I had been developed, the situation would have been different. But no treatment should be mandatory, and people need to inform themselves of possible unwanted side effects (known), and to understand that science is perfectible, based on the admission of ignorance.
Bibliography
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4266455/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15908138/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16295528/
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/89998
https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download
https://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-sanatate-23695528-surse-proiectul-legii-vaccinarii-deblocat-dupa-2-ani-jumatate-stat-sertar-legea-nu-aduce-obligativitatea-vaccinarii-deoarece-nu-exista-consens-politic.htm
