You gonna get another jab?

[eloisel]

...but it didn't come from Pfizer, so you tuned right out. Right?

No, I listened to a great deal of your preferred authority's message. I found it disturbing that he recognized mass hypnosis but misdirected the application of that concept regarding the response to Covid-19. Trump and his Republican supporters have mesmerized their violent base with the belief that Trump is their savior from whatever they feel is keeping them from having all that they want and they are willing to throw every dime of their wealth at his feet and even murder for him. Much like Hitler blamed all of the problems in Germany on the Jews, Trump and his Republican aiders and abbettors blame all the problems in the US on immigrants and people who do not kowtow to Trump. Much of the issue of the response to Covid-19 is due to Trump making Covid-19 a personal political issue declaring it a hoax just to make him look bad. Imagine the ego mania required to believe that the whole world is engaging in a plot to die just to make one pamper-wearing dictator wanna-be look bad. I agree there is some mass hypnosis going on and the hypnotized continue to throw out straw. Deprogram yourself dude.

 

[jack]

Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection - PubMed

We have developed an efficient and reproducible method for RNA transfection, using a synthetic cationic lipid, N-[1-(2,3-dioleyloxy)propyl]-N,N,N-trimethylammonium chloride (DOTMA), incorporated into a liposome (lipofectin). Transfection of 10 ng to 5 micrograms of Photinus pyralis luciferase...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

PubMed are not "Misinformationists." Neither is Malone. Note that I'm citing sources, because I'll note that you're not. That's how actually following the science works. Even when the science isn't going where those trying to steer the herd want it to.

Except I was quoting directly from this source: https://www.pennmedicine.org/mrna

and here's the reviewed opinion of PubMed which turns out to be just a Google repository of many things some of which aren't necessarily factual or accurate (meaning non biased authentic scientific reporting)

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/c...ing-paper-pubmed-does-not-mean-paper-any-good

In science, reliability generally emerges from a body of evidence made up of rigorous studies that end up pointing in the same direction. So the next time someone sends you a far-fetched scientific paper and reassures you that it was on PubMed, you can reply, “So what?”

And if they ever complain of a stuffy nose, you’ll know which paper to send them. Hey, it’s listed on PubMed!

 

[Loktar]

The Question: But, but they cited sources! It must be legit! Citing sources means they're following the science! Blah,blah....jibber jabber.....

 

[jack]

I just look at it this way...we did everything you weren't supposed to do this holiday season and the only person to go positive was the one person that did not get a booster shot. We were all exposed, all tested negative and just got out of quarantine.

Bit of a bitch of a random controlled experiment but it underscores the point that natural immunity is bullshit. Omicron is an easy thing to get mildly sick on, but the only immunity is to that variant. Period.

Get vaxxed if you havent. Get the third if you have.

May the Fourth be with you this spring.

 

[The Question]

He's a KNOWN misinformationist.

Had to revisit this.

He's a what? He's a what kind of nonce word? "Misinformationist"? You claim you're not being programmed along with the masses, but you're literally engaging in Orwellian Newspeak.

The word you wanted, there, the real word instead of the Newspeak, is, "Liar."

You think he's a liar. Not a "misinformationist," because that's a fucking made-up word, and I'll tell you why that word was invented:

Because if CNNLOL calls a man a liar, they may find themselves obligated to prove that he's a liar -- otherwise, they find themselves creating yet another Nick Sandmann, and they can ill afford to do that too often, these days.

But if they say he deals in, "misinformation," they can say, "well, it's our OPINION that his information is simply INCORRECT. He's MISINFORMED, not lying."

The media class that's programming you is hedging its bets with the words it uses. Funny that you haven't picked up on that, or deduced what it means.

 

[The Question]

We've all seen this picture, I think. The one guy not throwing the salute:

You wouldn't have been that guy.

 

[USUC]

Had to revisit this.

He's a what? He's a what kind of nonce word? "Misinformationist"? You claim you're not being programmed along with the masses, but you're literally engaging in Orwellian Newspeak.

The word you wanted, there, the real word instead of the Newspeak, is, "Liar."

You think he's a liar. Not a "misinformationist," because that's a fucking made-up word, and I'll tell you why that word was invented:

Because if CNNLOL calls a man a liar, they may find themselves obligated to prove that he's a liar -- otherwise, they find themselves creating yet another Nick Sandmann, and they can ill afford to do that too often, these days.

But if they say he deals in, "misinformation," they can say, "well, it's our OPINION that his information is simply INCORRECT. He's MISINFORMED, not lying."

The media class that's programming you is hedging its bets with the words it uses. Funny that you haven't picked up on that, or deduced what it means.

Yes because what we need in the media is less Walter Cronkite types and more Jerry Springer/Sean Hannity nut bags jumping up and down yelling “liar, liar, PANTS ON FIRE”! That’s responsible journalism. Gawd damn you’re dumb. I hope you’re first in line if they come out with a vaccine for stupid. And please, PLEASE don’t pro-create.

 

[eloisel]

I think The Question is being disingenuous and is arguing just to argue. Normally, I am up for that, however, this is one of those issues that isn't a joke. People will die, have died. If that toon isn't being disingenuous, then they are of the type that will not be persuaded by intelligent argument and therefore a waste of time. So, I'm done with this thread.

 

[The Question]

 

[The Question]

Now, as to whether or not Malone is a liar, which is Jack's (second-hand) contention. (Second-hand because Jack presumably lacks the credentials to know, himself, whether or not Malone's telling the truth. He's getting that position from Twitter, CNNLOL, et al.):

What does Malone get by lying? Is somebody bankrolling him to fabricate these patents and papers:

A novel approach to study packaging of retroviral RNA by RNA transfection (Abstract). RW Malone, P. Felgner, I. Verma. RNA Tumor Viruses, May 17-18, 1988. Cold Spring Harbor

mRNA Transfection of cultured eukaryotic cells and embryos using cationic liposomes. Malone RW. Focus. 1989; 11:61-8

DNA and RNA Transfection and Vaccination (Abstract). First Place, Northwestern AOA Research Symposium Competition for Medical Students: 1989.

Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection. Malone RW, Felgner PL, Verma IM. Proc Natl Acad Sci (PNAS) U S A. 1989;86(16):6077-81. Cited in 749 articles.

Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo. Wolff JA, Malone RW, et al. Science. 1990;247(4949 Pt 1):1465-8. Cited in 4,750 articles.

High levels of messenger RNA expression following cationic liposome mediated transfection tissue culture cells. Malone R, Kumar R, Felgner P. NIH Conference: “Self-Cleaving RNA as an Anti-HIV Agent (abstract). Washington, DC June 1989.

Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection. Dwarki VJ, Malone RW, Verma IM. Methods Enzymol. 1993;217:644-54. Cited in: 102 articles.

Delivery of exogenous DNA (includes mRNA) sequences in a mammal P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, R Malone, D Carson. Biotechnology Advances 1993: 15 (3-4), 763-763

Lipid-mediated polynucleotide administration to deliver a biologically active peptide and to induce a cellular immune response (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. No. 7,250,404, date of issue: 7/31/07 Cited in 105 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.

Lipid-mediated polynucleotide administration to reduce likelihood of subject’s becoming infected (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,867,195 B1. Date of issue: 3/15/05. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.

Generation of an immune response to a pathogen (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,710,035. Date of issue: 3/23/04. Citations: 39 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.

DNA (and mRNA) vaccines for eliciting a mucosal immune response. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,110,898, date of issue: 8/29/00. Cited in 40 articles.

Expression of exogenous polynucleotide sequences in a vertebrate, mammal, fish, bird or human (includes mRNA) . Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,673,776. Date of issue: 1/6/04. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.

Methods of delivering a physiologically active polypeptide to a mammal (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6.413.942. Date of issue: 7/2/02. (cited in 150 articles). Priority Date: 3/21/1989.

Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,214,804, date of issue: 4/10/01. Cited in 360 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.

DNA vaccines for eliciting a mucosal immune response (includes mRNA). US Pat. Ser. No. 6,110,898. Inventors: RW Malone and Jill Glasspool Malone. Date of issue: 8/29/00. Cited in 40 articles. Priority Date: 1997.

Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,589,466. Date of issue: 12/31/96. Cited in 899 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.

Delivery of exogenous DNA sequences in a mammal (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,580,859. Date of issue: 12/3/96. Cited in 1244 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.

Generation of antibodies through lipid mediated DNA delivery (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,703,055. Date of issue: 12/30/97. Cited in 419 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.

Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection. Dwarki VJ, Malone RW, Verma IM. Methods Enzymol. 1993;217:644-54. Cited in: 88 articles.

Robert Malone’s patents issued cationic lipid formations for use in mRNA vaccinations

Formulations and methods for generating active cytofectin: polynucleotide transfection complexes. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,925,623 7/20/99.

Cationic Transport Reagents. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,892,071 issued 4/06/99.

Polyfunctional cationic cytofectins, formulations and methods for generating active cytofectin: polynucleotide transfection complexes. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,824,812 issued 10/20/98.

Cationic Transport Reagents. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,744,625 issued 4/28/98.

Cationic Transport Reagents. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,527,928, date of issue: 6/18/96.

Papers related to cationic lipid polynucleotide transfection and vaccination (including mRNA)

Electroporation enhances transfection efficiency in murine cutaneous wounds. Byrnes CK, Malone RW, et al. Wound Repair Regen. 2004;12(4):397-403.

Marked enhancement of macaque respiratory tissue transfection by aurintricarboxylic acid. Glasspool-Malone J, …, Malone RW. Gene Med. 2002;4(3):323-2.

Enhancing direct in vivo transfection with nuclease inhibitors and pulsed electrical fields. Glasspool-Malone J, Malone RW. In Gene Therapy Methods: Methods Enzymol. 2002;346:72-91

Cutaneous transfection and immune responses to intradermal nucleic acid vaccination are significantly enhanced by in vivo electropermeabilization. Drabick JJ, Glasspool-Malone J, …, Malone RW. Mol Ther. 2001;3(2):249-55. Cited in 192 articles.

Theory and in vivo application of electroporative gene delivery. Somiari S, Glasspool-Malone J, … Malone RW. Mol Ther. 2000;2(3):178-87. Cited in 345 articles.

Efficient nonviral cutaneous transfection. Glasspool-Malone J, …, Malone RW. Mol Ther. 2000;2(2):140-6. Cited in 138 articles.

Developing dendritic cell polynucleotide vaccination for prostate cancer immunotherapy. Berlyn KA, …, Malone RW J Biotechnol. 1999;73(2-3):155-79

Models of Cationic Liposome Mediated Transfection. Gene Therapy and Molecular Biology. Ahearn A, Malone RW. Vol 4. Gene Therapy and Molecular Biology 1999;4

Cationic lipid-mediated gene delivery to murine lung: correlation of lipid hydration with in vivo transfection activity. Bennett MJ, …, Malone RW, Nantz MH. J Med Chem. 1997;40(25):4069-78

Toxicity of cationic lipid-ribozyme complexes in human prostate tumor cells can mimic ribozyme activity. Freedland SJ, Malone RW, et al. Biochem Mol Med. 1996;59(2):144-53

Considerations for the design of improved cationic amphiphile-based transfection reagents. Bennett MJ, …, Malone RW. Journal of Liposome Research 1996;6(3):545-65

Structural and functional analysis of cationic transfection lipids: the hydrophobic domain. Balasubramaniam RP, …, Malone RW. Gene Ther. 1996;3(2):163-72. cited in 172 articles.

Direct gene tranfer into mouse muscle in vivo. N Shafee, …, RW Malone, et al. International Journal of Virology 2 (1), 33-38

A flexible approach to synthetic lipid ammonium salts for polynucleotide transfection. MJ Bennett, RW Malone, MH Nantz. Tetrahedron letters 36 (13), 2207-2210

Tfx-50 Reagent, a new transfection reagent for eukaryotic cells. Schenborn E, …, Malone RW, et al. 1995


So, Jack, if Malone is lying, what's he getting out of it, other than a long and well documented history of expertise on the subject matter he's lying about?

Now, then: If he's right about mass formation psychosis, I should expect attacks instead of a clear-eyed rebuttal.

Of course, I'd also expect Google to hastily scrub 'mass formation psychosis' from search results.

Oh, shit, they did.

Google Quickly Resets, Screens Results for ‘Mass Formation Psychosis’ After Bombshell Dr. Malone, Joe Rogan Interview - NewsRescue.com

Ministry of Truth tactic should tell you all you need to know about what really motivates Google not just censoring videos or people, but now even concepts and theories in real time by Jamie White Dr. Robert Malone, the virologist who invented the mRNA technology used in the COVID injection...

newsrescue.com

When it comes to figuring out who's lying, follow the money. Malone isn't getting paid, he's getting censored.

 

[jack]

Malone is a disinformationist. It's not a hobby for him, he makes a shit ton of money off his lies. He's getting paid and endorsed to the tune of millions of $$$$$. You're incorrect in your assumption that he's doing this as some sort of altruistic scientist. He's not that. He's a charlatan. What we call in our industry a quack.

https://biographydaily.com/2022/01/03/dr-robert-malone-net-worth/

It figures you'd hop on that dick. Not that I care. You were exposed and got sick. I was exposed and did not.

Therein lies the tale.

By the way all that "research" of his you've been posting was done decades before. His claims to mRNA invention are specious at best and plagiarist at worst. Not his ionvention. His interpretation of the science is not reliable, since he wants to influence you in a certain way, which in your case he clearly has.

So what?

 

[The Question]

.

 

[The Question]

Malone is a disinformationist. It's not a hobby for him, he makes a shit ton of money off his lies. He's getting paid and endorsed to the tune of millions of $$$$$.

By whom?

His interpretation of the science is not reliable, since he wants to influence you in a certain way, which in your case he clearly has.

For what gain? Exactly what profit would he derive from lying? He's getting deplatformed and ostracized by the power money, not paid by them. Where'd his $20-25 million come from?

Most importantly, how do you know he's lying -- about anything -- beyond being told so by groups who do have money and power to gain by lying to you?

 

[The Question]

Let's go over a couple basic points:

1. Vaccines are supposed to prevent (or at least seriously mitigate the possibility of) infection and transmission. That's the only reason to attempt to coerce or compel anyone to take them. So that they don't spread the disease in question.

That's not what the COVID vaccines do. The CDC now admits that. There is no benefit from vaccination to the general public health. That leverage point has vanished.

2. We're now being told that we have to vaccinate in order to spare ourselves, individually, from the more severe symptoms, or from death. That's an individual outcome, and therefore whether or not to get vaccinated is, rightly, an individual choice.

The rejoinder to that point is, "Well, the unvaccinated will overwhelm hospitals!"

Irrelevant. The vaccinated are filling up hospitals, as well.

You were exposed and got sick. I was exposed and did not.

Based on medical data, my natural immunity is very likely to be superior to the acquired version.

 

[jack]

Bu

Let's go over a couple basic points:

1. Vaccines are supposed to prevent (or at least seriously mitigate the possibility of) infection and transmission. That's the only reason to attempt to coerce or compel anyone to take them. So that they don't spread the disease in question.

That's not what the COVID vaccines do. The CDC now admits that. There is no benefit from vaccination to the general public health. That leverage point has vanished.

2. We're now being told that we have to vaccinate in order to spare ourselves, individually, from the more severe symptoms, or from death. That's an individual outcome, and therefore whether or not to get vaccinated is, rightly, an individual choice.

The rejoinder to that point is, "Well, the unvaccinated will overwhelm hospitals!"

Irrelevant. The vaccinated are filling up hospitals, as well.

Based on medical data, my natural immunity is very likely to be superior to the acquired version.

Bullshit. The only immunity you get is to that variant. Your data is incorrect. Most people don't really understand mRNA at all including you based on your post

 

[The Question]

Bullshit. The only immunity you get is to that variant.

Nope.

 

[jack]

Yep, once again you misinterperet real data. Rely on fucking idiots as mentors, people who deal in misinformation because they have some axe to grind and come up short. That article was written well before omicron ever evolved. If you bothered to study current science you'd know what I'm talking about.

The idea of an omicron infection protecting you against the more deadly delta variant is fatally ignorant. That's why people who had delta (like you) got omicron (like you). If you had this "evolving immunity" after your delta infection you'd have been immune to omicron. That's using your logic.

I on the other hand was exposed to delta after 2 shots. Tested negative with no symptoms. Was exposed to omicron over the holidays and again tested negative with no symptoms.

My story is not terribly unique.

 

[USUC]

Let's go over a couple basic points:

1. Vaccines are supposed to prevent (or at least seriously mitigate the possibility of) infection and transmission. That's the only reason to attempt to coerce or compel anyone to take them. So that they don't spread the disease in question.

That's not what the COVID vaccines do. The CDC now admits that. There is no benefit from vaccination to the general public health. That leverage point has vanished.

2. We're now being told that we have to vaccinate in order to spare ourselves, individually, from the more severe symptoms, or from death. That's an individual outcome, and therefore whether or not to get vaccinated is, rightly, an individual choice.

The rejoinder to that point is, "Well, the unvaccinated will overwhelm hospitals!"

Irrelevant. The vaccinated are filling up hospitals, as well.

Based on medical data, my natural immunity is very likely to be superior to the acquired version.

No, the vaccinated AREN’T filling up hospitals, dumb shit. There are definitely break through cases with omicron but the vast majority of people requiring hospitalization (especially ICU care) remain the unvaccinated.

 

[jack]

That was my experience last week, when my wife had a mild stroke.

 

[Colonel Kira's Left Tit]

"Well, facts are stupid things." *look of confusion* "Uhh, strange things I should say." - Ronald Reagan, 1988