Post by: Jl808 on November 14, 2021, 12:26:44 PM
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bayer-executive-mrna-shots-are-gene-therapy-marketed-as-vaccines-to-gain-public-trust/
Wed Nov 10, 2021 - 10:40 am EST
BERLIN – The president of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division told international “experts” during a globalist health conference that the mRNA COVID-19 shots are indeed “cell and gene therapy” marketed as “vaccines” to be palatable to the public.
Stefan Oelrich, president of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division, made these comments at this year’s World Health Summit, which took place in Berlin from October 24-26 and hosted 6,000 people from 120 countries. Oelrich told his fellow international “experts” from academia, politics, and the private sector that the novel mRNA COVID “vaccines” are actually “cell and gene therapy” that would have otherwise been rejected by the public if not for a “pandemic” and favorable marketing.
Post by: omnigun on November 15, 2021, 10:20:46 AM
Nor is gene therepy that bad.
Post by: Inspector on November 16, 2021, 02:35:17 AM
Bayer executive: mRNA shots are ‘gene therapy’ marketed as ‘vaccines’ to gain public trustSo the pharmaceutical companies have to lie about what the vaccine really is to get people to take and accept them? Well then I guess only the naive and stupid people will believe it and will be happy to take it and all the subsequent boosters because they want to believe the lies. How pathetic. 🤦♂️
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bayer-executive-mrna-shots-are-gene-therapy-marketed-as-vaccines-to-gain-public-trust/
Wed Nov 10, 2021 - 10:40 am EST
BERLIN – The president of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division told international “experts” during a globalist health conference that the mRNA COVID-19 shots are indeed “cell and gene therapy” marketed as “vaccines” to be palatable to the public.
Stefan Oelrich, president of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division, made these comments at this year’s World Health Summit, which took place in Berlin from October 24-26 and hosted 6,000 people from 120 countries. Oelrich told his fellow international “experts” from academia, politics, and the private sector that the novel mRNA COVID “vaccines” are actually “cell and gene therapy” that would have otherwise been rejected by the public if not for a “pandemic” and favorable marketing.
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 16, 2021, 07:15:56 AM
So the pharmaceutical companies have to lie about what the vaccine really is to get people to take and accept them? Well then I guess only the naive and stupid people will believe it and will be happy to take it and all the subsequent boosters because they want to believe the lies. How pathetic.Add in stubbornness to admit theyre being dooped.
I know 2 people who supported their 2 vaxxes and now refuse to get a 3rd. Their thinking is "when will it end" and now realize there is no long term studies on how it will affect people.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Inspector on November 16, 2021, 07:19:06 AM
Add in stubbornness to admit theyre being dooped.With most people if you just speak the truth to them they will eventually get it.
I know 2 people who supported their 2 vaxxes and now refuse to get a 3rd. Their thinking is "when will it end" and now realize there is no long term studies on how it will affect people.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on November 16, 2021, 01:55:28 PM
Maybe instead of nuclear war, this vaccine is how all that starts:
Vaccinated = Morlocks
Unvaccinated = Eloi
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 16, 2021, 01:58:54 PM
With most people if you just speak the truth to them they will eventually get it.
There are always a handful who won't ever get it. So stubbornness or lack of intelligence. Or both.
Post by: Inspector on November 16, 2021, 02:07:11 PM
There are always a handful who won't ever get it. So stubbornness or lack of intelligence. Or both.I equate stubbornness to accept the truth as a lack of intelligence. It looks like 3.6=1.6.
Post by: omnigun on November 16, 2021, 02:37:01 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on November 16, 2021, 02:42:14 PM
Laugh all you want but yall don't make the truth. A bunch of flatearthers who all agree with each other and post "facts" that support their claim don't make it right no matter how much they make fun of the opposition.
If you're going to insult everyone here, maybe you shouldn't use "LOL!" so often in your posts. Makes you look 100% hypocritical to call anyone else out for laughing.
Is "Flat Earther" your rendition of an insult? Seems like nobody here labels themselves that. You're the only one using it as a way to attack people.
Post by: macsak on November 16, 2021, 02:57:01 PM
If you're going to insult everyone here, maybe you shouldn't use "LOL!" so often in your posts. Makes you look 100% hypocritical to call anyone else out for laughing.
Is "Flat Earther" your rendition of an insult? Seems like nobody here labels themselves that. You're the only one using it as a way to attack people.
there's at least one member of this forum that i am not convinced belives the earth is round...
Post by: omnigun on November 16, 2021, 03:01:16 PM
If you're going to insult everyone here, maybe you shouldn't use "LOL!" so often in your posts. Makes you look 100% hypocritical to call anyone else out for laughing.
Is "Flat Earther" your rendition of an insult? Seems like nobody here labels themselves that. You're the only one using it as a way to attack people.
It's a synonym for anti science position. Anti vaxx, q anon, conspiracies, religion etc.
I don't make the truth either only science discovers it. True. I take back the statement on the laughing.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on November 16, 2021, 03:07:12 PM
It's a synonym for anti science position. Anti vaxx, q anon, conspiracies, religion etc.
I don't make the truth either only science discovers it. True. I take back the statement on the laughing.
That's hilarious, coming from the self-appointed arbiter of truth on this forum. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
You can't "take back" something you posted online. What are you? 12? You said it -- A LOT!! Own it.
An adult would have apologized and promised to stop using "LOL!", which we all know is just a trolling taunt.
But, you gotta be you.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 16, 2021, 08:39:14 PM
Even if it is really just gene therapy, is that a bad thing? If gene therapy could fight a pandemic that seems like a goof thing.
Post by: Jl808 on November 16, 2021, 09:41:31 PM
I mean, they’ve never messed up tampering with genetic sequences of viruses before, right? What could go wrong?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 16, 2021, 09:53:16 PM
Experimenting with the human genes? What could go wrong?
I mean, they’ve never messed up tampering with genetic sequences of viruses before, right? What could go wrong?
Gene therapy is just a type of medical technology, just like genetically modified foods. It isn't inherently good or bad, depends on what is being modified and how. Or are you against any and all gene therapy treatments?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on November 16, 2021, 11:48:01 PM
Interesting. I could certainly see them stretching the definition of vaccine to make it sound more palatable to the public than gene therapy.
Even if it is really just gene therapy, is that a bad thing? If gene therapy could fight a pandemic that seems like a goof thing.
#1 - do you want your doctor to "dumb things down" for you when explaining what disease you have and what medications will do to your body?
#2 - do you believe the government is lying when they claim "transparency" then later explain it away as, "We knew you wouldn't understand?"
#3 - How can you ask if gene therapy is a bad thing when this case is about millions of people being injected with this experimental vaccine? That's not how you test gene therapy. You have to have a test group that represents a variety of DNA maps. They have NO CLUE what this therapy will do to any given percentage of the population. They can only guess. That's irresponsible if you didn't fully inform everyone BEFORE they got injected.
Post by: Inspector on November 17, 2021, 02:13:22 AM
Post by: aletheuo137 on November 17, 2021, 07:02:21 AM
Gene therapy is just a type of medical technology, just like genetically modified foods. It isn't inherently good or bad, depends on what is being modified and how. Or are you against any and all gene therapy treatments?The problem is when its forced and they don't give you a choice in the matter.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 17, 2021, 09:19:41 AM
The problem is when its forced and they don't give you a choice in the matter.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Exactly. Either comply or you cannot do your daily activities. This sets a dangerous precedent.
Wait till employers ask if an employee owns a gun. And if they do, then they must have another background check once a week and show proof to the employee. And to prevent active shootings, every 2 days a gun owner must do a background check in order to go to the gym, see a movie, get their nails done, etc...
Post by: groveler on November 17, 2021, 09:29:18 AM
Politically; I say dose up all the Democrats and any other government trusting homonids,
then study them for effects.
Mathematically; my Hypothesis is the government lies and you never reverse a
hypothesis until you have hard proof that a greater than 50% chance it it wrong.
Science; Science is never "settled" it is a never ending quest. We don't know what
we don't know until we look.
When we are able to turn a baby with all the genetic material to be nearly 100% brown eyed into a person with
green eyes with more than 50% certainty and with no side effects, then I will trust Gene therapy.
We will also eliminate all Homosexuals at that point. as we would have identified the "Gay" gene /s.
See where this all goes?
:wacko:
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 17, 2021, 09:36:28 AM
I've been rolling the dice on all this since the beginning.
Politically; I say dose up all the Democrats and any other government trusting homonids,
then study them for effects.
The FDA/CDC has protocols for the vaxx creation process. Which have been in place for a long time for a reason. So when the poll asked if Trump also pushed taking the vaxx, I said no. Because said procedures were changed.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 17, 2021, 10:23:20 PM
The FDA/CDC has protocols for the vaxx creation process. Which have been in place for a long time for a reason. So when the poll asked if Trump also pushed taking the vaxx, I said no. Because said procedures were changed.
The podcast I posed addressed this issue in a bit of detail. Usually studies run 3 trials one after the other but they ran 3 trials simultaneously. This was an increased risk to the trial participants but it also shaved a lot of time off of the approval process. The 3rd wave of human trials wasn't sped up as I understand though. The tradeoff of course is potential lives saved by having the vaccine come out sooner. Was this a good call? Some certainly think so, I think the best we can say is time will tell whether this was a good decision or not.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 17, 2021, 10:30:04 PM
#1 - do you want your doctor to "dumb things down" for you when explaining what disease you have and what medications will do to your body?
Personally, no. I tend to ask way more questions than a doctor usually wants to answer. I think others do want dumbed down simple answers though
Quote
#2 - do you believe the government is lying when they claim "transparency" then later explain it away as, "We knew you wouldn't understand?"
It does not inspire confidence but I also understand that sometimes if you throw too many facts at the public they tune out. There is a balance in presenting effectively. I personally prefer more information
Quote
#3 - How can you ask if gene therapy is a bad thing when this case is about millions of people being injected with this experimental vaccine? That's not how you test gene therapy. You have to have a test group that represents a variety of DNA maps. They have NO CLUE what this therapy will do to any given percentage of the population. They can only guess. That's irresponsible if you didn't fully inform everyone BEFORE they got injected.
I don't know if the mRNA vaccines truly are a form of gene therapy as the person claims or if it is in a gray area where there is some disagreement over whether it could really be considered gene therapy. If there are differences in opinion then it isn't necessarily a lie if two sides just don't use the same definition.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 17, 2021, 10:30:53 PM
The problem is when its forced and they don't give you a choice in the matter.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
I agree but then that doesn't matter whether it is gene therapy or not. They should never force a treatement on you either way.
Post by: macsak on November 17, 2021, 10:32:31 PM
The podcast I posed addressed this issue in a bit of detail. Usually studies run 3 trials one after the other but they ran 3 trials simultaneously. This was an increased risk to the trial participants but it also shaved a lot of time off of the approval process. The 3rd wave of human trials wasn't sped up as I understand though. The tradeoff of course is potential lives saved by having the vaccine come out sooner. Was this a good call? Some certainly think so, I think the best we can say is time will tell whether this was a good decision or not.
they did not run three PHASES simultaneously
some ran 2/3 together
Post by: macsak on November 17, 2021, 10:35:30 PM
Personally, no. I tend to ask way more questions than a doctor usually wants to answer. I think others do want dumbed down simple answers though
It does not inspire confidence but I also understand that sometimes if you throw too many facts at the public they tune out. There is a balance in presenting effectively. I personally prefer more information
I don't know if the mRNA vaccines truly are a form of gene therapy as the person claims or if it is in a gray area where there is some disagreement over whether it could really be considered gene therapy. If there are differences in opinion then it isn't necessarily a lie if two sides just don't use the same definition.
1 not shocking at all that you ask way more questions. also not shocking that you consider others to need things "dumbed down"
B not shocking you prefer more information
last the mRNA vaccines were defined as "gene therapy" - this has been noted and referenced MANY times before, links were even posted
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 17, 2021, 10:48:21 PM
they did not run three PHASES simultaneously
some ran 2/3 together
Not according to the guy who came up with and administered the Warp Speed Project.
Some ran the phases simultaneously, maybe not all of them did. They narrowed the project down to about 14 vaccine candidates IIRC, maybe not all of them ran their phases simultaneously.
But consider that running 3 phases simultaneously would not necessarily mean anything was rushed between the human trials and approval for public use. If you save time by doing the animal trials simultaneously to the human trials you can save time while not having short cut the human trials.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 17, 2021, 10:51:09 PM
1 not shocking at all that you ask way more questions.Isn't this a good thing?
Quote
also not shocking that you consider others to need things "dumbed down"
False, I did not say this. Read my post again.
Quote
B not shocking you prefer more information
last the mRNA vaccines were defined as "gene therapy" - this has been noted and referenced MANY times before, links were even posted
Are all the experts in agreement that it is gene therapy though? Is there a consensus or are there two crowds in disagreement?
Post by: macsak on November 17, 2021, 11:04:59 PM
Not according to the guy who came up with and administered the Warp Speed Project.
Some ran the phases simultaneously, maybe not all of them did. They narrowed the project down to about 14 vaccine candidates IIRC, maybe not all of them ran their phases simultaneously.
But consider that running 3 phases simultaneously would not necessarily mean anything was rushed between the human trials and approval for public use. If you save time by doing the animal trials simultaneously to the human trials you can save time while not having short cut the human trials.
please show me where all three phases were done at once
in case you need a head start, look here:
https://media.defense.gov/2020/Aug/12/2002475961/-1/-1/1/WARP-SPEED-VACCINE-TIMELINE.PDF
Post by: macsak on November 17, 2021, 11:05:53 PM
Not according to the guy who came up with and administered the Warp Speed Project.
Some ran the phases simultaneously, maybe not all of them did. They narrowed the project down to about 14 vaccine candidates IIRC, maybe not all of them ran their phases simultaneously.
But consider that running 3 phases simultaneously would not necessarily mean anything was rushed between the human trials and approval for public use. If you save time by doing the animal trials simultaneously to the human trials you can save time while not having short cut the human trials.
please show me where i said i didn't consider this
Post by: aletheuo137 on November 18, 2021, 07:00:17 AM
I agree but then that doesn't matter whether it is gene therapy or not. They should never force a treatement on you either way.I spoke with my son who is on the frontline of Covid. He said that the vaccinated have immunity program into their dna. That's why they're not showing antibodies.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 18, 2021, 07:55:42 PM
please show me where i said i didn't consider this
I didn't say you didn't consider it.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 18, 2021, 07:56:39 PM
I spoke with my son who is on the frontline of Covid. He said that the vaccinated have immunity program into their dna. That's why they're not showing antibodies.
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
Sorry I don't follow, what do you mean the vaccinated aren't showing antibodies? What is the significant here?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 18, 2021, 07:57:24 PM
please show me where all three phases were done at once
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=43539.0
Post by: macsak on November 18, 2021, 08:18:17 PM
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=43539.0
ARONCZYK: The way things have been done in the past will not work for a respiratory virus that is quickly spreading around the world. Up until now, the fastest timeline for a new vaccine was four years. Thankfully, Dr. Bob knows someone at the FDA, Dr. Peter Marks. They patch him into the pizza party.
KADLEC: Peter Marks, you know, came on the line, and we pitched him about this idea of accelerating the FDA approval cycle.
HOROWITZ-GHAZI: Together, they come up with a bold solution. What if they were to run all the parts of the FDA process - the animal trials, the human trials, the data analysis - all roughly at the same time?
KADLEC: It's basically taking a string, as linear as it is when you hold it end to end, and then folding it on itself to take the processes that are typically done sequentially and doing them in parallel.
that's your "proof"?
i think you need to go back to your hypothetical drawing board...
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 18, 2021, 08:54:12 PM
ARONCZYK: The way things have been done in the past will not work for a respiratory virus that is quickly spreading around the world. Up until now, the fastest timeline for a new vaccine was four years. Thankfully, Dr. Bob knows someone at the FDA, Dr. Peter Marks. They patch him into the pizza party.
KADLEC: Peter Marks, you know, came on the line, and we pitched him about this idea of accelerating the FDA approval cycle.
HOROWITZ-GHAZI: Together, they come up with a bold solution. What if they were to run all the parts of the FDA process - the animal trials, the human trials, the data analysis - all roughly at the same time?
KADLEC: It's basically taking a string, as linear as it is when you hold it end to end, and then folding it on itself to take the processes that are typically done sequentially and doing them in parallel.
that's your "proof"?
i think you need to go back to your hypothetical drawing board...
Why is that not good proof? You aren't going to trust the guy who started and oversaw the program? Is there some credibility issue with this man I am unfamiliar with?
You are just dismissing my "proof" without any justification.
Post by: macsak on November 18, 2021, 08:57:27 PM
Why is that not good proof? You aren't going to trust the guy who started and oversaw the program? Is there some credibility issue with this man I am unfamiliar with?
You are just dismissing my "proof" without any justification.
i am dismissing your "proof" because IT IS A QUESTION
you see the "what if" and the question mark?
that means IT IS A QUESTION
NOT A STATEMENT
FOCUS
Post by: macsak on November 18, 2021, 09:00:22 PM
i am dismissing your "proof" because IT IS A QUESTION
you see the "what if" and the question mark?
that means IT IS A QUESTION
NOT A STATEMENT
FOCUS
is that enough "justification" for you?
Post by: macsak on November 18, 2021, 09:04:13 PM
Why is that not good proof? You aren't going to trust the guy who started and oversaw the program? Is there some credibility issue with this man I am unfamiliar with?
You are just dismissing my "proof" without any justification.
also note the use of the word "roughly"
someone who chooses their words so carefully to avoid being wrong should recognize when someone else is doing the exact same thing...
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 18, 2021, 09:31:59 PM
i am dismissing your "proof" because IT IS A QUESTION
you see the "what if" and the question mark?
that means IT IS A QUESTION
NOT A STATEMENT
FOCUS
And if you see later in the podcast that is what they included in the plan they submitted tot he government and got approved.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 18, 2021, 09:33:34 PM
also note the use of the word "roughly"
someone who chooses their words so carefully to avoid being wrong should recognize when someone else is doing the exact same thing...
Fair enough, I should have said roughly simultaneously but that is missing the point.
Point was that a lot of time was saved by doing them at roughly the same time instead of back to back.
Post by: macsak on November 18, 2021, 09:42:28 PM
Fair enough, I should have said roughly simultaneously but that is missing the point.
Point was that a lot of time was saved by doing them at roughly the same time instead of back to back.
so you were wrong...
Post by: macsak on November 18, 2021, 09:47:50 PM
And if you see later in the podcast that is what they included in the plan they submitted tot he government and got approved.
link? timestamp?
it says nothing of that sort in the transcript
your statement is no closer to "proof" of your statement (that you later tried to change to "roughly" to avoid being wrong) than before...
Post by: macsak on November 18, 2021, 09:55:29 PM
Fair enough, I should have said roughly simultaneously but that is missing the point.
Point was that a lot of time was saved by doing them at roughly the same time instead of back to back.
you are blindly sticking to your one podcast link you posted
did you even look at the link i provided?
you know, the one from the defense department that was a simple graphic of the process?
you know, the one that shows how they speeded up the process by sometimes combining phase 2 and 3 exactly as i had stated?
you know, the one that shows how time was saved, by streamlining the process, not by having all 3 run simultaneously (roughly or not)?
Post by: macsak on November 18, 2021, 09:56:57 PM
Post by: Inspector on November 19, 2021, 02:35:27 AM
also note the use of the word "roughly"I call that using “Weasel Words”. :thumbsup:
someone who chooses their words so carefully to avoid being wrong should recognize when someone else is doing the exact same thing...
Post by: MassConfusion on November 19, 2021, 08:11:31 AM
Remember that most large 'news' outlets receive funding from big pharma, they say what they are paid to say. This does not take into account any pressure from governmental sources. I would venture the same for 'fact' checkers. I don't think anyone would, with any honesty, disagree.
Collage of a few different articles, https://treatforlife.com/is-mrna-vaccine-a-gene-therapy/
https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/08/13/mit-harvard-study-suggests-mrna-vaccine-might-permanently-alter-dna-after-all/
you can try reading this paper, it went a little over my head. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4817894/
It has been postulated to me that the mrna will effect the mitochondrial dna. This is passed from mother to child.
this mess might have something to do with it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8348895/
I have been known to be wrong.
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 19, 2021, 11:31:35 AM
Remember that most large 'news' outlets receive funding from big pharma, they say what they are paid to say.
Which PV showed footage of a producer admitting.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 19, 2021, 08:03:10 PM
so you were wrong...
If that is what you need to win then fine. I didn't say roughly when I should have.
Post by: macsak on November 19, 2021, 08:32:31 PM
If that is what you need to win then fine. I didn't say roughly when I should have.
it's not about "roughly"
it's about "simultaneously"
FOCUS
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 20, 2021, 09:22:21 PM
it's not about "roughly"
it's about "simultaneously"
FOCUS
So maybe they didn't start on the exact same time, my point still remains valid, that they performed different phases at the same time to shorten the duration of the overall process.
Post by: macsak on November 20, 2021, 09:32:51 PM
So maybe they didn't start on the exact same time, my point still remains valid, that they performed different phases at the same time to shorten the duration of the overall process.
no, your point is not the same
"they ran 3 trials simultaneously" is not the same as "roughly simultaneously" is not the same as "they performed different phases at the same time to shorten the duration of the overall process"
i love how you try to be so vague so as not to be wrong, yet when you are wrong, you cannot admit it...
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 21, 2021, 10:30:13 PM
no, your point is not the same
"they ran 3 trials simultaneously" is not the same as "roughly simultaneously" is not the same as "they performed different phases at the same time to shorten the duration of the overall process"
i love how you try to be so vague so as not to be wrong, yet when you are wrong, you cannot admit it...
Whether they started the phases on the same exact day or staggered each a week apart but were all running at the same time is insignificant compared to running one phase, waiting a long time then running the next phase then waiting a long time, etc.
You are nitpicking.
Post by: macsak on November 22, 2021, 08:23:59 AM
Whether they started the phases on the same exact day or staggered each a week apart but were all running at the same time is insignificant compared to running one phase, waiting a long time then running the next phase then waiting a long time, etc.
You are nitpicking.
neither of those statements are true
Post by: macsak on November 22, 2021, 08:28:05 AM
Whether they started the phases on the same exact day or staggered each a week apart but were all running at the same time is insignificant compared to running one phase, waiting a long time then running the next phase then waiting a long time, etc.
You are nitpicking.
it took you five days to get to that point?
you could've said that from the beginning, but you didn't, so here we are
it's not nitpicking to say you are making patently false statements...
Post by: eyeeatingfish on November 22, 2021, 07:49:29 PM
it took you five days to get to that point?
you could've said that from the beginning, but you didn't, so here we are
it's not nitpicking to say you are making patently false statements...
That was my point from the beginning