Public Health News | Measles outbreak, RFK Etc

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 665
  • Views: 17K
  • Politics 
gtyellowjacket said:
Yes. My argument is that its fetal material if its DNA from fetal cells. I'm not sure how that is splitting atoms. Are you making the argument that DNA from fetal cells from fetal cell lines from aborted fetuses from 60 years ago is not fetal material?
Click to expand...
If you're willing to make that link/span across time, then I can definitively say it's not fetal cell dna, it's bacterial cell dna from 4 billion years ago that's just made its way up the chain. There is no fetal to it as there has been an unbroken chain of previous cells since the first cell. We good?
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I also didn't agree with RFK. You must have missed that.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say you did. I said you’re defending what he said and not very well.
gtyellowjacket said:
Was the website incorrect in some way?
Click to expand...
There is no attribution for the statement, so I can’t evaluate. With that said, I doubt I’d find much to criticize about how they arrived at that figure.
The more salient issue is the interpretation of the statement. What RFK claimed was, in essence, there are pieces of dead babies in the vaccine. He didn’t use that specific wording, but that’s what he intended to convey. As I said earlier, it’s incorrect in every practical manner. It has no more validity than saying the tap water in NO contains human excrement from Memphis.
Even accepting the presence of DNA from the host culture cells at the picogram level, those nucleotides would be synthesized de novo with component molecules from a bottle of cell culture medium.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
I didn’t say you did. I said you’re defending what he said and not very well.

There is no attribution for the statement, so I can’t evaluate. With that said, I doubt I’d find much to criticize about how they arrived at that figure.
The more salient issue is the interpretation of the statement. What RFK claimed was, in essence, there are pieces of dead babies in the vaccine. He didn’t use that specific wording, but that’s what he intended to convey. As I said earlier, it’s incorrect in every practical manner. It has no more validity than saying the tap water in NO contains human excrement from Memphis.
Even accepting the presence of DNA from the host culture cells at the picogram level, those nucleotides would be synthesized de novo with component molecules from a bottle of cell culture medium.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is you now accept the presence of DNA in vaccines? Because that's all I'm saying. If you think I'm saying something else, you're incorrect. If you don't think there is fetal DNA in vaccines, you are also incorrect.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
So what you're saying is you now accept the presence of DNA in vaccines? Because that's all I'm saying. If you think I'm saying something else, you're incorrect. If you don't think there is fetal DNA in vaccines, you are also incorrect.
Click to expand...
You spend an extraordinary amount of time broadcasting your ignorance all over this message board.

What if you used half of that time to learn things instead of spouting off? Your experience on the board might improve a lot.
 
ZenMode said:
"I can't answer your question about 40. I can tell you that there are ***thousands*** of studies that have tested the predictions of relativity. There are tens of thousands testing quantum theories."

There's tons of unknowns in relativity and quantum theories. There's nothing complex about vaccines except how you convince the crazies to stop being crazy .
Click to expand...
There's tons of unknowns in your understanding of pretty much everything.

There aren't many unknowns in quantum or relativity. There used to be. Thousands of studies later, those theories are pretty damn good.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
So what you're saying is you now accept the presence of DNA in vaccines? Because that's all I'm saying. If you think I'm saying something else, you're incorrect. If you don't think there is fetal DNA in vaccines, you are also incorrect.
Click to expand...
You are incorrect. Vaccine Ingredients: Fetal Cells

"In order to grow viruses in the lab, cells need to be made into single cell suspensions, meaning they can no longer be grouped together in the form of tissues or organs. As such, vaccines do not contain “parts of fetuses.”

Vaccines also do not contain fetal cells. Once the vaccine viruses are grown in the cells, the next step in the manufacturing process is to purify the vaccine viruses away from the cells and substances used to help cells grow. If you have ever picked blueberries, you can think of this part of the process as similar. While you are picking, you might get some of the blueberry plant — stems, leaves and even branches — in your berry bucket, but to use the berries, you remove all of those things, so your pie contains only the blueberries (and any other ingredients you choose to add).

Plasmid-gate: Debunking the DNA contamination claims in mRNA vaccines | Global Vaccine Data Network

In recent months, the internet has buzzed with a conspiracy theory dubbed "Plasmid-gate." The claim? COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are "contaminated" with residual DNA, which could integrate into human DNA and potentially cause cancer, or even "turbo cancer." These accusations have sparked concerns...
www.globalvaccinedatanetwork.org www.globalvaccinedatanetwork.org

But here’s where the conspiracy starts: During vaccine production, mRNA is synthesised using plasmids—small, circular pieces of DNA in bacteria like E. coli that carry genetic instructions. Once the desired mRNA is produced, the plasmid DNA is removed through purification processes, though tiny amounts of residual DNA may remain. These fragments are highly degraded and non-functional.

Notice not DNA from fetal cells.

Note also that the entire concept of "fetal DNA" is stupid and makes no sense. DNA is DNA. It's a fucking molecule -- a big one (technically many molecules) -- but a molecule nonetheless. In a pregnant woman there can be traces of the embryo's DNA in her blood stream, but that's not "embryonic" DNA. It's just DNA that came from an embryo -- i.e. the one inside her. Otherwise, DNA is just DNA.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
So what you're saying is you now accept the presence of DNA in vaccines? Because that's all I'm saying. If you think I'm saying something else, you're incorrect. If you don't think there is fetal DNA in vaccines, you are also incorrect.
Click to expand...
Dude, we can all see the history of your posts. If you’re going to do the Gish Gallop, at least put some fucking effort into it. To this point, and despite prior experience, I’ve given you the benefit of doubt regarding your ability to understand and your sincerity. Thanks for clarifying you’ve neither.
 
Last edited:
BlooVooDoo said:
Dude, we can all see the history of your posts. If you’re going to do the Gish Gallop, at least put some fucking effort into it. To this point, and despite prior experience, I’ve given you the benefit of doubt regarding your ability to understand and your sincerity. Thanks for clarifying you’ve neither.
Click to expand...
Quote it then. I have consistently said that there are traces of fetal DNA in vaccines. That's what I started saying and that's what I'm still saying.

I'm sure you think you read something else and maybe out of context you did but I would not agree with RFK's statement that there is a lot of fetal material in vaccines.
 
BoonetheAiredale said:
If you're willing to make that link/span across time, then I can definitively say it's not fetal cell dna, it's bacterial cell dna from 4 billion years ago that's just made its way up the chain. There is no fetal to it as there has been an unbroken chain of previous cells since the first cell. We good?
Click to expand...
No. That's pretty silly. The bacterial cells have evolved and mutated pretty significantly in billions of years. The fetal cells today are almost identical if not completely identical to the fetal cells from 60 years ago. Consistency is the one of the main benefits of having a fetal cell line.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
No. That's pretty silly. The bacterial cells have evolved and mutated pretty significantly in billions of years. The fetal cells today are almost identical if not completely identical to the fetal cells from 60 years ago. Consistency is the one of the main benefits of having a fetal cell line.
Click to expand...
But you would have to say that fetuses contain bacterial dna debris and ergo said vaccine has bacterial dna debris? Correct? And if so, how do you pick one as more important than the other? There is no line of demarcation as the fetus contains the parents dna debris and the generation before that and the generation before that. DNA debris has accumulated across time to make a trash dump of DNA debris wouldn't you say?
 
BoonetheAiredale said:
But you would have to say that fetuses contain bacterial dna debris and ergo said vaccine has bacterial dna debris? Correct? And if so, how do you pick one as more important than the other? There is no line of demarcation as the fetus contains the parents dna debris and the generation before that and the generation before that. DNA debris has accumulated across time to make a trash dump of DNA debris wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...
Sure. I'm sure vaccines contain traces of bacterial DNA on an even smaller scale than the traces of fetal DNA that they contain. I suppose both could be true. I think you pick one as being more important or really relevant than the other as the difference between the evolution that would happen in 4,000,000,000 years vs 60 years.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Sure. I'm sure vaccines contain traces of bacterial DNA on an even smaller scale than the traces of fetal DNA that they contain. I suppose both could be true. I think you pick one as being more important or really relevant than the other as the difference between the evolution that would happen in 4,000,000,000 years vs 60 years.
Click to expand...
Ok let's just go back 3 generations. That a total of 14 sets of DNA debris that made the 15th's debris. Which of those 15 is the most "important" debris, the debris we should focus on? Which one is "really relevant" and why is one more relevant than the other?

So much debris. Kind of like mountain rivers after Hurrican Helene.
 
BoonetheAiredale said:
Ok let's just go back 3 generations. That a total of 14 sets of DNA debris that made the 15th's debris. Which of those 15 is the most "important" debris, the debris we should focus on? Which one is "really relevant" and why is one more relevant than the other?

So much debris. Kind of like mountain rivers after Hurrican Helene.
Click to expand...
I think you're going pretty far off topic here. I think you should tighten up a bit. Do you want to try to ask a relevant question?
 
BoonetheAiredale said:
The topic is dna debris is it not? Is that a relevant question?
Click to expand...
This is where this all started and the original discussion was not about DNA debris but aborted DNA debris.

gtyellowjacket said:
There is some truth to the statement that some vaccines contain aborted fetus debris. A lot is misleading and imprecise. Traces is a better description.
Click to expand...
You want to give a source for that claim? I'm not saying you're wrong but I can't imagine the hows or whys.
 

“Steven J. Hatfill, a virologist and White House adviser during President Donald Trump’s first term who pushed hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the coronavirus despite what most researchers said was a lack of scientific evidence, has joined the second Trump administration in a senior role at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Hatfill will begin his second week Monday as special adviser in the director’s office at the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, a small agency responsible for preparing the U.S. for disasters such as pandemics and biological and chemical attacks.
An Army biodefense researcher, Hatfill was investigated for years by the Justice Department as a “person of interest” in the 2001 mailing of letters that contained anthrax spores, which killed five people and sickened 17. Hatfill was formally exonerated in 2008, the same year the government paid him $4.6 million to settle his lawsuit in the case.

…
Fauci and other health officials said there was no evidence the drug fought the coronavirus. Navarro and Hatfill repeatedly attacked Fauci in the emails, citing his “outrageous bias” and other alleged mistakes in a battle that was picked up by the news media.

On Saturday, Hatfill repeated his claims that hydroxychloroquine is safe and effective against the coronavirus, contending there are “5,000 controlled, randomized studies” that were peer-reviewed. He said that research has shown the drug reduces mortality rates if given early in the course of the disease. …”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top