BioNTech says there are no talks with Thonburi Healthcare for vaccines

[Thaiger]

Following reports that the Thonburi Healthcare Group in Thailand was planning to sign an agreement for 20 million doses of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine, Germany BioNTech said it was not in talks with the Thai hospital group. In an email sent to Reuters reporters, BioNTech said “We are not in negotiations with the company you mentioned below about vaccine supply.” The hospital group had made an announcement earlier today saying it would order 20 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Reuters reporters reached out to Pfizer and BioNTech, but neither confirm the deal. Pfizer wrote in a statement “We are in […]

The post BioNTech says there are no talks with Thonburi Healthcare for vaccines appeared first on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Dedinbed]

Oh dear .. coming apart at the seams it would appear ..

[BookShe]

These idiots (private hospitals) don't seem to get it. No reputable vaccine manufacturers are negotiating with private entities. All these vaccines are approved for emergency use only. Meaning. Only governments can order in case there are legal claims. Of course it doesn't apply for the chinese companies. They don't give a f... about a few million more dead, whether because of their virus or because of their vaccines. (a friend of mine told me this in case you wonder)

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by BookShe

[mic]

 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/could-mrna-vaccines-permanently-alter-dna-recent-science-suggests-they-might

 

is mRNA dangerous ??

 

 

[BlueSphinx]

7 minutes ago, mic said:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/could-mrna-vaccines-permanently-alter-dna-recent-science-suggests-they-might

is mRNA dangerous ??

Yes!

[BookShe]

2 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

Yes!

Ru a virologist or bioscientist? Making a bold statement like this based on some articles circleing on some websites is not science. Mrna can not penatrate to the DNA. So if you afraid that after receiving an Mrna based vaccine like Pfizer that you become a Zombie, I can assure you it's quite unlikely. If in doubt, you can always go with the chinise placebo to be on the safe side.

Edited July 15, 2021 by BookShe

[vlad]

51 minutes ago, BookShe said:

Ru a virologist or bioscientist? Making a bold statement like this based on some articles circleing on some websites is not science. Mrna can not penatrate to the DNA. So if you afraid that after receiving an Mrna based vaccine like Pfizer that you become a Zombie, I can assure you it's quite unlikely. If in doubt, you can always go with the chinise placebo to be on the safe side.

Or the Sputnik 

 

[BookShe]

43 minutes ago, vlad said:

Or the Sputnik 

Yes. It's still better than Sinovac.

[BlueSphinx]

13 hours ago, BookShe said:

Ru a virologist or bioscientist? Making a bold statement like this based on some articles circleing on some websites is not science. Mrna can not penatrate to the DNA. So if you afraid that after receiving an Mrna based vaccine like Pfizer that you become a Zombie, I can assure you it's quite unlikely. If in doubt, you can always go with the chinise placebo to be on the safe side.

My answer was not on the matter whether mRNA can alter your DNV, but to the question by @mic whether mRNA (he was referring to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines) was dangerous.  My unequivocal answer to that is YES!

 

And I am in expert company with that answer as dr Robert Malone - credited as the inventor of the mRNA technology - stated in a recent interview.

‘In the Security and Exchange Commission filings for both Pfizer and Moderna, there’s explicit statements that acknowledge that these are gene therapy-based (vaccines) and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) perceives them as such.’ 

He then explained the science behind the vaccines by using the metaphor of an industrial robot used to build cars. The RNA in this metaphor is the code that a hacker is inserting into the bit stream to make these robots (your cells) make something they would not have otherwise made. In this case, it’s the spike protein that’s recognised by the immune system triggering a response.  

‘In a conventional vaccine you can precisely calculate how much protein goes into your shoulder because it’s fixed and predictable, but in the case of these genetic vaccines you can’t,’ he warned.  

‘You can’t calculate how long it produces this protein and how much protein it makes and exactly what cells in your body the protein goes into. Conventional vaccines go around your cell, but for these gene therapy-based vaccines the target is your cell.’ 

Dangerous is probably too feeble a word to describe the largely unknown longer-term effects and consequences of these gene-modifying jabs, and the +1.000.000 (short-term) reports in the US, EU and UK adverse effect vaccine reporting systems since the roll-out 6 months ago, are not trust-inspiring for what is yet to come as the change to your 'immune system software' by the mRNA jab is permanent and irreversible.  To paraphrase the Lord of the Rings: '... but the effect of the mRNA jab could not be undone...'.  Mordor, here we come!

 

[SickBuffalo]

49 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

And I am in expert company with that answer as dr Robert Malone - credited as the inventor of the mRNA technology - stated in a recent interview.

I like Robert Malone, he speaks a lot of sense on Ivermectin, but the interview you read may have misrepresented his position, as so much material does these days.

Firstly, although the anti-vaxx community have taken to referring to him as such, he is not the inventor of mRNA technology and, when questioned about it, does not claim to be.

He wrote a paper about the possible uses of mRNA but that is a far cry from being an inventor of the actual technology. That is largely recognized as being Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman, but literally hundreds of researchers made bigger contributions to the development than Robert Malone.

Secondly, both Malone and his wife are actually vaccinated with Pfizer. He discusses this in the famous episode of the Dark Horse podcast in which he appeared. He stated that he had some worries about possible problems but, having waited six months, he wasn't seeing the emergence of any signs indicating those problems and decided that any risks of getting vaccinated were outweighed by the risks of getting infected. He considers Covid-19 to be dangerous and is convinced that "long Covid" is a significant problem.

His noteworthy position, and why he has become a regular in the anti-vax media, is that we should be pursuing a three-pronged approach globally: Recovery, Vaccines, and other prophylactics and treatments.

He says we should use mRNA vaccines when we have them but we should be testing everyone for antibodies beforehand to make sure they have not already recovered and, therefore, already have better immunity than the vaccine can give them. It is a waste of a vaccine, and probably more dangerous, to give it to someone who already has natural immunity.

As it will be years before we can get mRNA vaccines to most of the world's 7.7 billion people, we should be ramping up, in every country, the production of Ivermectin and other safe, cheap, existing medicines that have been shown to be effective in both preventing infection and in treating it. He sees that approach as augmenting vaccines, but is clear that the vaccines themselves are a useful tool.

He believes that this three-pronged strategy could actually drive the virus to extinction and, certainly, will prevent so many variants from emerging while we wait years for the vaccines to be widely available.

His criticisms, if you listen carefully, are mainly about the corporate capture of regulatory bodies, the scientific and medicals establishments, and the media. He says that the sudden heavy censorship of discussion of any treatment that is not a vaccine, for fear that it will fuel vaccine hesitancy, is anti-scientific and a strategic mistake when we don't have enough vaccines to go around anyway.

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by SickBuffalo

[Stonker]

46 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

And I am in expert company with that answer as dr Robert Malone - credited as the inventor of the mRNA technology - stated in a recent interview.

No you're not, since although Dr Robert Malone may well have said what you quoted he didn't reach your conclusion, nor does he even suggest that it's the case.

 

It's like quoting a Gordon Ramsey recipe for an omelette, then saying that Gordon Ramsey says they're carcinogenic because you think they are and you're using his recipe.

 

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by Stonker
typo

[BookShe]

34 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

My answer was not on the matter whether mRNA can alter your DNV, but to the question by @mic whether mRNA (he was referring to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines) was dangerous.  My unequivocal answer to that is YES!

As of today, there is zero scientific evidence that Mrna vaccines pose any risk other than the general risk of injecting substances into your body. All vaccines have some kind of risk involved.

 

49 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

And I am in expert company with that answer as dr Robert Malone - credited as the inventor of the mRNA technology - stated in a recent interview.

 

 

It is Dr. Katalin Karikó and her collaborator Dr. Drew Weissman who are more commonly credited with laying the groundwork for mRNA vaccines.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "mRNA vaccines teach our cells how to make a protein—or even just a piece of a protein—that triggers an immune response inside our bodies." mRNA vaccines are a new sort of vaccine; the COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna were the first.

On his personal website, Twitter, and LinkedIn, Dr. Robert Malone has been promoting himself as the inventor of mRNA vaccines. This is misleading. In 1989, Malone published a paper titled "Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection." While this paper is an example of his important contribution to the then-emerging field, it does not make him the inventor of mRNA vaccines.

50 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

Dangerous is probably too feeble a word to describe the largely unknown longer-term effects and consequences of these gene-modifying jabs, and the +1.000.000 (short-term) reports in the US, EU and UK adverse effect vaccine reporting systems since the roll-out 6 months ago, are not trust-inspiring for what is yet to come as the change to your 'immune system software' by the mRNA jab is permanent and irreversible.  To paraphrase the Lord of the Rings: '... but the effect of the mRNA jab could not be undone...'.  Mordor, here we come!

You are right. We don't know the long term effects of this new technology, just as much as we didn't know the long term effects  200+ years ago when we started using vaccines.

Edward Jenner is considered the founder of vaccinology in the West in 1796, after he inoculated a 13 year-old-boy with vaccinia virus (cowpox), and demonstrated immunity to smallpox. In 1798, the first smallpox vaccine was developed.

Is Mordor coming? Maybe. I don't know, and I'm sure you don't know either. All I'm saying is that as of today the Mrna based vaccines are classified as safe and for emergency use only.

 

 

 

 

[BookShe]

I think this explains everything. Science at its best.

"Dr. Robert Malone during a Wednesday segment on Fox News's Tucker Carlson Tonight"

:)))))))))))))

[SickBuffalo]

18 hours ago, mic said:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/could-mrna-vaccines-permanently-alter-dna-recent-science-suggests-they-might

is mRNA dangerous ??

No.

Anything you put into your body can have side effects, but mRNA vaccines are less invasive than traditional forms of vaccine. The consensus is that any risks are far less than the risks of damage from Covid-19, which now looks as if it is going to be endemic and unavoidable in the long term.

There are also other factors, such as having elderly relatives, friends who are overweight, or wanting to travel to foreign countries, that make the benefits of getting vaccinated outweigh any risks.

That article is complete nonsense. You can tell that by simply looking at all the other nonsense on that website, or checking the writer's name. That article was written "by Children’s Health Defense".

There is absolutely no possible mechanism by which mRNA vaccines can change your DNA. That is not what they do.

There is so much disinformation out there these days. Some of it, such as that website, is deliberately misleading, churning out wild theories to get more clicks. Never forget that these websites are mostly run by one guy who knows less than you, has no morals, and is just excited that he can make thousands of dollars per week working from his bedroom.

A lot of stuff is shared by people who mean well but who have gone a little crazy and now keep hammering their friends with any article that seems to support their crusade. If you, yourself, are not yet crazy, you can easily assess the quality of the information they are giving you by double checking the claims being made. That is not as hard as it sounds, these things are churned out so quickly that they contain tons of mistakes or exaggerated claims.

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by SickBuffalo

[BlueSphinx]

19 minutes ago, SickBuffalo said:

I like Robert Malone, he speaks a lot of sense on Ivermectin, but the interview you read may have misrepresented his position, as so much material does these days.

Firstly, although the anti-vaxx community have taken to referring to him as such, he is not the inventor of mRNA technology and, when questioned about it, does not claim to be.

He wrote a paper about the possible uses of mRNA but that is a far cry from being an inventor of the actual technology. That is largely recognized as being Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman, but literally hundreds of researchers made bigger contributions to the development than Robert Malone.

Secondly, both Malone and his wife are actually vaccinated with Pfizer. He discusses this in the famous episode of the Dark Horse podcast in which he appeared. He stated that he had some worries about possible problems but, having waited six months, he wasn't seeing the emergence of any signs indicating those problems and decided that any risks of getting vaccinated were outweighed by the risks of getting infected. He considers Covid-19 to be dangerous and is convinced that "long Covid" is a significant problem.

His noteworthy position, and why he has become a regular in the anti-vax media, is that we should be pursuing a three-pronged approach globally: Recovery, Vaccines, and other prophylactics and treatments.

He says we should use mRNA vaccines when we have them but we should be testing everyone for antibodies beforehand to make sure they have not already recovered and, therefore, already have better immunity than the vaccine can give them. It is a waste of a vaccine, and probably more dangerous, to give it to someone who already has natural immunity.

As it will be years before we can get mRNA vaccines to most of the world's 7.7 billion people, we should be ramping up, in every country, the production of Ivermectin and other safe, cheap, existing medicines that have been shown to be effective in both preventing infection and in treating it. He sees that approach as augmenting vaccines, but is clear that the vaccines themselves are a useful tool.

He believes that this three-pronged strategy could actually drive the virus to extinction and, certainly, will prevent so many variants from emerging while we wait years for the vaccines to be widely available.

His criticisms, if you listen carefully, are mainly about the corporate capture of regulatory bodies, the scientific and medicals establishments, and the media. He says that the sudden heavy censorship of discussion of any treatment that is not a vaccine, for fear that it will fuel vaccine hesitancy, is anti-scientific and a strategic mistake when we don't have enough vaccines to go around anyway.

 

Thanks, and indeed dr Malone clearly speaks sense that governments should apply a three-pronged approach globally: Recovery, Vaccines, and other prophylactics and treatments.

He is clearly not a conspiracy theorist nor an anti-vaxxer and has spent the past three decades building vaccines and vaccine technology.  Considering that background it is not surprising that he sees vaccines as part of the solution, but I give him full credit for the fact that he did speak out clearly on the issues around vaccine-safety (especially for children and pregnant women).

The interview < see link below > was originally posted on YouTube but removed within the space of just three hours. And so the interviewer had to post it on alternative video-sharing platforms, such as Rumble and BitChute (the latter being a site which I would normally avoid)

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/ukx8L3lh5CA7/

 

 

[Stonker]

7 minutes ago, SickBuffalo said:

A lot of stuff is shared by people who mean well but who have gone a little crazy and now keep hammering their friends with any article that seems to support their crusade. If you, yourself, are not yet crazy, you can easily assess the quality of the information they are giving you by double checking the claims being made. That is not as hard as it sounds, these things are churned out so quickly that they contain tons of mistakes or exaggerated claims.

 

Unfortunately, @SB, a lot is also shared by those who don't mean well but simply want to drag their 15 minutes of fame out for as long as possible for financial or egotistical reasons, who think that making endless links and quotes will support their absurd theories even though none of them actually say what they claim they do.

 

Who's the bigger fool, though?

 

The one claiming the moon's made out of cheese, or the one playing their game and replying?

[SickBuffalo]

3 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

The interview < see link below > was originally posted on YouTube but removed within the space of just three hours. And so the interviewer had to post it on alternative video-sharing platforms, such as Rumble and BitChute (the latter being a site which I would normally avoid)

Yes, his Dark Horse interview, a superbly detailed discussion on a high-level, respected podcast, was also removed from YouTube, which pretty much proved his point

My point is simply that he is not as against the Covid vaccines as you appear to be, so, it isn't quite right to both misframe and draw upon his credibility to support your position, saying you are in the expert company of the inventor of mRNA vaccines.

I saw some anti-vaxxers doing the same thing with the retired scientist Michael Yeadon. He had been one of Pfizer's hundreds of divisional vice presidents and, during the pandemic, he started spreading some wild theories about both the virus and mRNA vaccines. He also made some startling predictions that turned out to be significantly wide of the mark. His name would often get slapped into anti-vaxx articles as a weigh to add credibility, usually claiming that he had been the President of Pfizer.

I hope you do not mind me calling out details that I believe to be incorrect. With so much confusion around this subject, it is desperately important that we all find the sane middleground between establishment censorship and fringe media click-driven fear porn.

 

[BlueSphinx]

10 minutes ago, SickBuffalo said:

...
I hope you do not mind me calling out details that I believe to be incorrect. With so much confusion around this subject, it is desperately important that we all find the sane middleground between establishment censorship and fringe media click-driven fear porn.

We clearly have a different view on covid-vaccine safety, but I do not mind at all an open civil discussion.  On the contrary it would probably enrich our knowledge/insight in the matter, and I have no problem admitting when I am proven wrong.  I also highly appreciate and respect the way you present your views without insulting or name-calling.