Who recalls assurances mRNA stays at the injection site and does not travel through the body?
Now detected in breast milk.
Informed consent
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
2 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Breast milk containing vaccine induced antibodies? Say it ain't so! Well, as prior reported and again in this pre-print, it is so; YES, the COVID vaccinal antibodies DO get into mother's breast milk
Yes, there is a risk to the child; what are implications, no one knows, they did not and will not study it, Pfizer will not! inoculating via breastmilk and then baby get vaccine, is very harmful - [palexander.substack.com]
BDair
Level 8
Sep 29, 2022
0
648 cases of side effects were reported to the VAERS system on breastfed infants whose mothers received the Covid-19 vaccine - [rtnews.co.il]
I do not recall that assurance, can you prove it?
Here is the first sentence of the Discussion section of the JAMA study: The sporadic presence and trace quantities of COVID-19 vaccine mRNA detected in EBM suggest that breastfeeding after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is safe, particularly beyond 48 hours after vaccination.
LovinLarge
Level 8
Sep 28, 2022
0
puff:
[reuters.com]
"Fact Check-mRNA cannot be ‘spread’ from COVID-19 vaccines; mRNA is not contagious and it is destroyed by cells shortly after injection"
So if destroyed by cells shortly after injection, being detected in breast milk disproves that little Reuters fact check does it not? Do you count a Reuters fact check an assurance?
@puff Reuters is a news agency not a health agency, they're not even qualified to take medical positions or give medical assurances.
puff:
@LovinLarge Try clicking on links in the article (here, here)
@puff Have you no shame? It is a Reuters article that includes citations. It is an article written by an employee of a news agency, not someone with medical qualifications. Reuters drew conclusions based on other peoples' work. Reuters neither did the work nor was it qualified to assess the work.
This is exactly what you always do, skew the information in a dishonest attempt to squeeze it into your narrative. I would not interact with someone like you in person.
puff:
@LovinLarge FFS Reuters is perhaps the most respected news organisation on the planet. You name me one media organisation that creates it's own news because as far as I am aware, media report newsworthy stories. They do not have to have professional expertise in the field they report on. Did you notice some of the citations were from organisations such as the CDC?
@puff The source of the article upon which you rely for a medical opinion is "Reuters Fact Check". You are so intellectually dishonest that you don't have the capacity to critically examine your own argument. Nothing you say is legitimate because you have no regard for the truth. You take no issue with cheating to win. Or in this case, lose.
puff:
@LovinLarge Opinion? Covid medicines are less than 5 years old ie experimental ie new data is still incoming. So I posted results from a new study because it suggests what was assumed before, because we were told by "experts", appear to be not so conclusive. I believe in informed consent so passing on the information (information as in inform) so people may consider this also before freely choosing.
Up to them to decide whether to choose, not a nanny representative from the state.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.