Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "Moderna and other vaccines" video.

  1. Also, why would it change DNA? In the cell, mRNA is used to transmit information from the DNA to the protein making apparatus. There is no DNA changed at any point in this process. .
    4
  2. No. 1/3rd of the country is immune due to survival, so all we need is another 40% to get the vaccine to get to the threshold of R<1.
    3
  3. not true
    3
  4.  @dessyred5785  The CDC estimated 8 missed cases for every case in the testing totals. . If that is accurate, and it is similar to results found in other studies, it would mean the total is roughly = 14m x 9 = 126m, about 1/3rd of the US. .
    2
  5. I'm sure it could be, but I'm not sure why mRNA would be a better weapon than a million other things.
    2
  6.  @TheKeswani  Good correction, thank you. "interim review of the data suggests that the vaccine is safe and effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in adults." . But not 100% effective, so one could still catch and spread. . https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/promising-interim-results-clinical-trial-nih-moderna-covid-19-vaccine
    2
  7. test conditions were 'in the wild' . ~ 94% reduction in risk of getting infected with SARS-2 virus
    2
  8. Corporate media is astoundingly bad.
    2
  9. Are you sure it was Covid? If so, then it would be a free choice. . You would not need to get a vaccine, as your natural immunity is probably much more than the vaccine immunity, but no harm, and it guards against possible false positive tests. Just my thoughts there.
    1
  10. 14m x 9 - 126m in the USA . (by CDC estimate of 8 cases missed per positive test)
    1
  11.  @markp6982  A proper study will correct for error rates. . That's what the CDC was trying to do: find out how many true cases, not just test-positives.
    1
  12. I agree, although it may be simpler to offer to everyone.
    1
  13.  @aaditmortgage  If supply is limited then I certainly would agree with you. In that case it would be best for people with confirmed cases to wait. .
    1
  14. I don't think that is correct. They would have tested everyone in the trials.
    1
  15. CEOs have to file trades of their own company with the SEC in advance.
    1
  16.  @charlisparkles  The trials showed a roughly 90% reduction in risk of infection in the group given the vaccine. . (Pfizer and Moderna, two different vaccines, similar percentage, 90 to 94%)
    1
  17.  @mastercommander4535  That's not quite
    1
  18. yes no
    1
  19. that's called testing it "in the wild"
    1
  20. it is against a microbe that causes the cancer, technically
    1
  21.  Andrew Ongais  The scientific community hasn't ruled out a natural virus with a part of it modified to increase human infectivity. . Also, one can talk about evolution as "designing" things, although it is done without goals or precognition.
    1
  22. So far, it seems that natural protection is much higher than vaccine protection. . I would say a confirmed survivor would not need the vaccine but certainly could choose to get it. It might help maintain immunity. Plus, it guards against false positive tests, rare though they seem to be.
    1