Major German Academic Medical Center Study: No Healthy Children Have Died Due to SARS-CoV-2

Major German Academic Medical Center Study: No Healthy Children Have Died Due to SARS-CoV-2

A team of German scientists from prominent academic medical centers including Car Gustav Carus, Technical University (Dresden);

trialsitenews.com

A team of German scientists from prominent academic medical centers including Car Gustav Carus, Technical University (Dresden); Ludwig-Maximilian-University (Munich), and Heidelberg University (Heidelberg) conducted an observational study to better understand the risks associated with COVID-19 in children. Leveraging data from the SARS-CoV-2 KIDS study as well as data from a nationwide registry on hospitalized children with COVID-19 and Pediatric Inflammatory Multisystem Syndrome—Temporarily-Associated with SARS-CoV-2 (PIMS-TS), the study was sponsored by the German Society for Pediatric Infectious Diseases (DGPI). The investigators combined data in a bid to validate the risk assessment involving hospitalization, intensive care (ICU) admission, and death associated with the novel coronavirus as well as PIMS-TS for children in various age groups—based on vaccination eligibility cohorts in Germany. The study findings are based on data with several assumptions which must be factored into the bombshell results. Moreover, this study was just recently published in the medRxiv preprint and hasn’t been verified by the peer-review process yet. But nonetheless, the findings raise just a few questions associated with the benefit-risk analysis involving the mass vaccination of children aged 5 to 11.

What did the team find?

In Germany among the data accessible, the investigators discovered a SARS-CoV-2 infection rate of 35.9 per 10,000 children. Interestingly, the ICU rate was far lower at 1.7 per 10,000 and the case fatality rate equaled 0.9 per 10,000. The authors found that “Children without comorbidities were found to be significantly less likely to suffer from a severe or fatal disease course.”

In the cohort 5-11 years of age, the lowest risk group became apparent based on the observational study findings. In this latter group, the ICU admission rate equaled 0.2 per 10,000, and case fatality rates couldn’t be calculated—there were no deaths reported.

When it came to PIMS-TS, the rate emerged at 1 per 4,000 SARS-CoV-2 infections. Most of these cases involved children without comorbidities.

Conclusion

This study, led by researchers from some of Germany’s most prominent academic medical centers, found that “the SARS-CoV-2 associated burden of a severe disease group or death in children and adolescents is low.” This observation is a strong and consistent pattern across 5- to 11-year-old children not struggling with comorbidities. The authors do not, however, feel that PIMS-TS can impact disease burden across age groups.

The study team suggests that approximately 3% of all children in Germany have one or more relevant comorbidities and thus, an increased risk of COVID-19. Importantly, the authors couldn’t find a single death due to COVID-19 involving a healthy child. The data in this study is comparable to the standards of other important seroprevalence estimates around the world.

Limitations

This study is observational and hence shouldn’t be used as primary evidence

Uncertainty in the data based on the three different sources (estimates)

Possible selection bias

ELISA cut-off values

Precision & the suitability of IgG detected by ELISA to depict COVID-19 infections in children

Lead Research/Investigator

Jakob Armann, Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University, Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Corresponding Author

Al Sorg, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Institute of Social Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Division of Pediatric Epidemiology

M Hufnagel, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases and Rheumatology

M Doenhardt, Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University, Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital and Medical Faculty

N Diffloth, Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University, Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital and Medical Faculty

H Schrotein, Heidelberg University, Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Medical Faculty

R v. Kries, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Institute of Social Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Division of Pediatric Epidemiology

R Berner, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Institute of Social Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Division of Pediatric Epidemiology

Call to Action: This study has profound implications for the mass vaccination of children. An accurate and comprehensive benefit-risk analysis must be better understood in the context of the true threat of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2 and all its variants) to children (hospitalization and mortality) and the threat of adverse events associated with the vaccines as compared to the benefits.

Risk of Hospitalization, severe disease, and mortality due to COVID-19 and PIMS-TS in children with SARS-CoV-2 infection in Germany

Quote from THHuxleynew

and 99% of the world's free press,

You mean FM/R/ /B owned journals repeating world wide the same FUD ???

Quote from zorud

Scientists told Reuters that while mRNA vaccines can be considered “genetic-based therapy”

This is the correct citation. The rest FUD! In cancer treatment the same technology is called gene therapy since ever....

Quote from THHuxleynew

You can however look at regulators throughout the free world.

Which free world?? The evil FM/R/ /B empire?

Quote from THHuxleynew

VAERS etc shows vaccine deaths vastly undercounted by official figures

Just wrong. Provably so. And based mostly on total statistical illiteracy.

Clownish or chieldish beahvior... A half a dozen studies did prove this VAERS under-reporting. But clowns always know better....

Quote from zorud

Did Wyttenclown read the article or just the headline...?

Scientists told Reuters that while mRNA vaccines can be considered “genetic-based therapy” because they use genetic code from COVID-19, they are not technically gene therapy. This is because the mRNA does not change the body’s genetic makeup.

https://www.genomicseducation.…nes-arent-gene-therapies/

The author and editor clearly need a 'genomics education'.

For one, mRNA delivery systems have been called a form of 'gene therapy' for years.

They don't alter the cell's DNA, and yet they are still called 'gene therapy'. For example here's just a few excerpts from https://www.tandfonline.com/do…517/14712598.2015.1057563

"we also highlight the recent improvements of mRNA delivery for in vivo applications of gene therapy."

"In an effort to improve efficiency of systemic delivery of modified mRNA for gene therapy..."

"The use of mRNA-based gene transfer could indeed be a promising new strategy for gene therapy. Notable advantages include no risk of integration into the genomic DNA..."

etc, etc,

Strike one against the article. Strike two is the article saying this :

The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is a type of vaccine called a viral vector. It works by using a harmless virus that has been altered to have the SARS-CoV-2 protein on its surface.

This is false. The adenovirus vector used in this 'vaccine' does not have the SARS-CoV-2 protein on its surface. Rather, it has specially engineered double stranded DNA inside it, which gets into a human cell and then its nucleus, where it is transcribed into mRNA which leaves the nucleus and is then is translated into spike protein. So the adenovirus vector is also a kind of gene therapy.

TTH's NHS tax dollars at work?

Quote from Mark U

For one, mRNA delivery systems have been called a form of 'gene therapy' for years.

Only, due to an EU regulatory quirk, in the EU. You may mistake EU regulations for science, but most people don't.

Quote from Mark U

he Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is a type of vaccine called a viral vector. It works by using a harmless virus that has been altered to have the SARS-CoV-2 protein on its surface.

This is false. The adenovirus vector used in this 'vaccine' does not have the SARS-CoV-2 protein on its surface. Rather, it has specially engineered double stranded DNA inside it, which gets into a human cell and then its nucleus, where it is transcribed into mRNA which leaves the nucleus and is then is translated into spike protein.

The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) consists of the replication-deficient simian adenovirus vector ChAdOx1, containing the full-length structural surface glycoprotein (spike protein) of SARS-CoV-2, with a tissue plasminogen activator leader sequence. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 expresses a codon-optimised coding sequence for the spike protein (GenBank accession number MN908947).

The point is that the DNA so delivered cannot replicate. Antivaxxers seem always to confuse genes (which reproduce in the body and across generations) with fragments of RNA or DNA that cannot replicate even in one host let alone get into a germ line.

Why?

Definition of gene:

What is a gene?: MedlinePlus Genetics

A gene is the basic physical and functional unit of heredity. Genes are made up of DNA and each chromosome contains many genes.

medlineplus.gov

A gene is the basic physical and functional unit of heredity. Genes are made up of DNA. Some genes act as instructions to make molecules called proteins. However, many genes do not code for proteins. In humans, genes vary in size from a few hundred DNA bases to more than 2 million bases. An international research effort called the Human Genome Project, which worked to determine the sequence of the human genome and identify the genes that it contains, estimated that humans have between 20,000 and 25,000 genes.

Genes are DNA that can replicate.

Quote from Wyttenbach

In cancer treatment the same technology is called gene therapy since ever....

There is an important distinction here that antivaxxers (deliberately, or through extraordinary lack of attention to detail) miss.

There are some treatments that actually work by delivering replicable fragments of DNA to reprogram cells and their descendents. Those are true gene therapies - an they are pretty difficult to make work.

There are very many treatments, using a variety of techniques, now, which work by inserting non-replicable genetic material into specific cells. That programs them do make new proteins and changes the function of those cells (e.g. cancer cells can no longer replicate, etc). These are also called gene therapy by the pharmas working on them I guess because the pharma PR departments were not counting on anyone being as obtuse as the antivaxxers.

Gene Therapy for Cancer Treatment: Past, Present and Future

The broad field of gene therapy promises a number of innovative treatments that are likely to become important in preventing deaths from cancer. In this…

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Antivaxxers know that labelling something gene therapy and talking about pregnancy or fertility makes the connection with germ-lines and progeny. It sounds scary. It is (for 99% of these treatments) a lie.

There are a very few treatments (carried out on foetuses or babies) that aim actually and permanently to reprogram cells in the body with replicable DNA. It is juts really difficult to get these to work but there is some success for genetic diseases.

Those are closer to being true gene therapy but still fall short because although they reprogram cells in the body they do not affect the (specially protected) reproductive organs. Hence not gene therapy in the true sense.

THH

Quote from JedRothwell

Who ever said that? Everyone knows the vaccines have side effects. It has been widely reported in the news. Every authoritative website says there are side effects. You have to sign a paper acknowledging the likely side effects before they give you shot. Roughly half the people I have spoken with said they had side effects, ranging from feeling ill for a day to several days. I think just about everyone gets a sore arm for a day or two.

The only question has been: Are there serious side effects? The worst ones from the mRNA vaccines seem to be myocarditis. Fortunately, it seems to get better in a few days with no permanent damage.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/cor…d-19/vaccine-side-effects

I know a few cases with inflamation in the spine (2v after shot and very unpleasent 6month recover first month in bed with pain). Similary to the event that stopt Astra Zenica's trial. Not sure if it two cases per 100.000 that's what I know of possible more but these things are underreported. Unfourtunately one of these cases was not reported, the other got instruction not to take the second shot. Th einsidence may be larger than this and is anekdotal.

There are some people like THH who think 'gene therapy' is meant to provide therapy to genes, to fix them. Meanwhile, to people who actually work in the field, it is the application of genetic material (from whatever source) into a subject, with the aim to provide therapeutic benefit for the subject.

Quote from THHuxleynew

There are some treatments that actually work by delivering replicable fragments of DNA to reprogram cells and their descendents. Those are true gene therapies - an they are pretty difficult to make work.

Our clown still endlessly repeats his FM friends FUD.

Of course the spike protein gets replicated in any cell it attacks. After replication it is expressed in tiny liposome structures on the surface of a randomly attacked cell. This is the reason why people have free floating spike proteins up to 4 months after the jab!

In a true vaccine the immune cells sense the surface or parts of digested virus to find a good pattern to memorize. The prime toxic invader will never be replicated in the immunization process !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Israeli Retrospective Study Investigates Incidence of Myocarditis Using National Patient Database

Israeli Retrospective Study Investigates Incidence of Myocarditis Using National Patient Database

Two studies were recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine investigating the incidence of myocarditis after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine

trialsitenews.com

Two studies were recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine investigating the incidence of myocarditis after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine in Israel. One study analyzed data in the database of the national health maintenance organization called Clalit Health Services and was reported by TrialSite. The other study led by Dr. Dror Mevorach at Hadassah Hebrew University and Saron Alroy with the Israeli Ministry of Health retrospectively investigated data regarding presumptive cases of myocarditis including clinical and laboratory data as well as discharge summaries from a national database associated with the Israel Ministry of Health. Covering data in this national system from December 20, 2020, to May 2021, this included a period of active and passive safety surveillance. Leveraging ICD-9 codes for screening the researchers could identify the appropriate data for analysis. The study team employed four board-certified cardiologists to analyze the data with inputs from a board-certified rheumatologist to provide a verification of diagnosis. They concluded that myocarditis post COVID-19 vaccination, including one and two doses is generally rare but more frequent with young males aged 16 through 19 as well as after the second COVID-19 vaccine jab. This should impact a benefit-risk analysis involving the vaccination of young people for COVID-19.

Background

A total of 9.2 million records are in the national database as part of this surveillance study. Of that total 5, 442,696 received their first vaccine dose and 5,125,635 received a second dose. Out of that total 304 cases of myocarditis were identified and reported to the Ministry of Health. Of the total 196 persons were diagnosed with the condition after receiving their second dose of the vaccine while 151 persons experienced the condition with 21 days of the first dose and 30 days after the second dose; 45 persons were diagnosed in the period 21 days and 30 days respectively.

A detailed review of the case histories led to the elimination of 21 cases due to reasonable alternative diagnoses. Consequently, they affirmed the diagnosis of the cardiovascular-based condition with 283 cases. This included 142 among vaccinated persons within 21 days after the first dose and 30 days post the second jab. 40 of them were associated with vaccinated persons not related to the vaccination while 101 occurred among unvaccinated persons.

The authors noted that of the 142 persons identified with myocarditis developed within 21 days post the first jab of the vaccine or within 30 days post the second jab, 146 of them received a diagnosis of “definite” or “probable myocarditis. One (1) of the subjects were identified as a diagnosis of possible myocarditis and 5 were associated with insufficient data.

Results

The study team published in NEJM that of the 304 persons with myocarditis symptoms, 21 received an alternative diagnosis. Again with 283 cases remaining, 142 were identified as occurring post receipt of the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) Of that total, 136 were diagnosed as “definitive” or “probable.” Out of all of these cases 129 recipients (95%) were deemed mild cases while “one fulminant case was fatal.” This meant that the response was sudden and severe—a death associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine much like TrialSite reported in Vietnam with three young people.

But what is the overall risk according to the Israeli data between the first and second doses? That equaled 1.76 per 100,000 persons (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33 to 2.19), and the largest difference among make recipients between the ages of 16 and 19 years of age (difference, 13.73 per 100,000 persons; 95% CI 8.11 to 19.46).

The Israeli team compared the actual incidence associated with the vaccine with the expected incidence based on historical data which led to the following metric: a standardized incidence ratio of 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48 to 6.40) and this was highest post the second jab in male recipients in the age range of 16 and 19 years of age (13.60; 95% CI, 9.30 to 19.20).

For the ratio 30 days after the second dose in those fully vaccinated, their rate compared with unvaccinated persons equaled 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10 to 5.02). The rate ratio spiked again in that cohort of males aged 16 through 19 years of age ( 8.96; 95% CI, 4.50 to 17.83 ) equaling a ratio of 1 in 6637.

Conclusion

While the overall incidence of the cardiovascular-based adverse event remains low, the incidence does increase after administration of the BNT162b2 vaccine especially after the second dose involving young male recipients. Overall, the cases leaned on the mild side in terms of symptoms or “clinical presentation.”

Comparison to Clalit Health Services Data Study

The study team compared the Clalit Health Services database study (Witberg et al) and found that in that study a “somewhat lower incidence of myocarditis” was discovered, “Possibly because of the different methods that were used.”

Compared to the Unvaccinated Population

The study team found that the incidence of myocarditis was greater in the vaccinated group than in those in the unvaccinated group. The risk identified in this study is associated with “increased incidence after the second dose of vaccine and in young male recipients.”

Lead Research/Investigator

Dr. Dror Mevorach at Hadassah Hebrew University

Saron Alroy-Preis, Israeli Ministry of Health

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109730

Powerful England House of Lords Committee Halts Mandatory NHS Vaccination

Powerful England House of Lords Committee Halts Mandatory NHS Vaccination

Although published in the prominent British Medical Journal (BMJ), the mainstream media won’t touch this important update associated with the British

trialsitenews.com

Although published in the prominent British Medical Journal (BMJ), the mainstream media won’t touch this important update associated with the British mandatory vaccination requirements of National Health System (NHS) staff. Specifically, the UK’s House of Lords committee declared that there just isn’t enough evidence as to the benefits of vaccination to sufficiently back mandatory NHS staff vaccinations.

The House of Lords committee raised numerous concerns regarding proposed legislation mandating vaccination for all NHS staff in England. Only 8% of the remaining workers need to be jabbed, and for the 5.4% who do not want the vaccine, the result would be to resign or be terminated. Questions arose as to how the NHS would fare with losing staff.

Not ‘thoroughly thought through’

This is what the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has come to—that the policy isn’t fully “baked” meaning not thought through, thus, the House of Lords couldn’t “scrutinize the proposed legislation.”

Who is behind the universal jab mandate?

Sajid Javid, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sajid_Javid England’s Health and Social Care secretary. Javid announced that “All staff who work in health and social care settings regulated by the Care Quality Commission will have to be fully vaccinated by 1 April 2022.” See the link for more details.

What’s the push back?

By November 30, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee declared that the benefit of increasing the protection from vaccinating staff who had not yet taken up offers of the jab could “be marginal,” and moreover, as expressed by Zosia Kmietowicz writing for the BMJ “the government had failed to publish any contingency plans on how it would cope with the loss of staff who do not want the vaccine.”

Major impact to the nation’s health system

While in the United States the Biden administration did something similar—using OSHA and CMS as a mechanism to enforce vaccine mandates—the backlash there is already well underway. In England, the committee found that out of the 208,000 NHS staff who had yet to get the jabs, 54,000 (26%) would ultimately get the vaccine while 126,000 (61%) would rather leave their position.

What does it come down to?

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has several critiques of Javid’s mandate including A) a lack of effective analysis of the costs to the system for needing to recruit so many new employees and B) deficient assessment of the very real necessity of legislating practical details such as how people would interact face to face.

Robin Hodgson chairs the committee and declared:

“We fully support high levels of vaccination, but DHSC is accountable to parliament for its decisions and needs to give us a clear statement of the effect of these regulations, the effect of doing nothing, and any other solutions considered, so parliament fully understands all the consequences of what it is being asked to agree to. This is particularly important when the NHS is already under such pressure.”

Susi saves Japan. If it's green and edible, it probably offers more protection than vaccines!!!

Green seaweed may help prevent COVID-19 virus from affecting human cells: Study

Green seaweed may help prevent COVID-19 virus from affecting human cells: Study | Health Tips and News

Key HighlightsA substance extracted from edible marine algae may help stop the spread of coronavirus, according to a study.The study is still in its early stages, but we hope that the discovery will be used in the future to develop an accessible and effective drug, preventing infection with the coronavirus.They then decided to test ulvan because it could be extracted from common seaweed.

Quote from Fm1

Although published in the prominent British Medical Journal (BMJ), the mainstream media won’t touch this important update associated with the British mandatory vaccination requirements of National Health System (NHS) staff. Specifically, the UK’s House of Lords committee declared that there just isn’t enough evidence as to the benefits of vaccination to sufficiently back mandatory NHS staff vaccinations.

That's nonsense. There is nothing more MSM then this crappy rag. It is also in the Daily Telegraph which is Boris Johnson's very own Pravda

‘Calmer set of waters by spring!’ NHS staff avoid compulsory vaccinations this winter

NHS STAFF have avoided compulsory double vaccination this winter according to the latest plans being considered by Government ministers.

www.express.co.uk

Quote from Wyttenbach

Our clown still endlessly repeats his FM friends FUD.

Of course the spike protein gets replicated in any cell it attacks. After replication it is expressed in tiny liposome structures on the surface of a randomly attacked cell. This is the reason why people have free floating spike proteins up to 4 months after the jab!

In a true vaccine the immune cells sense the surface or parts of digested virus to find a good pattern to memorize. The prime toxic invader will never be replicated in the immunization process !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So: to finish this:

This is now side-stepping the question of gene therapy. Proteins are not genes!

The distinction between a vaccine that directly injects viral proteins into you, and one that injects much smaller amounts of mRNA that get turned over 24 hours into the same qty of viral proteins is surely not a deal-breaker? unless you are an antivaxxer...

Toxicity - or not - comes from which viral proteins you choose. It is not dependent on the delivery method.

THH

PS - Just saw this Of course the spike protein gets replicated in any cell it attacks.

Wyttenfact: proteins do not get replicated by cells they enter.

BTW the omicron spike proteins appear to be pretty similar to those used by coronavirus common colds...

Quote from Mark U

There are some people like THH who think 'gene therapy' is meant to provide therapy to genes, to fix them. Meanwhile, to people who actually work in the field, it is the application of genetic material (from whatever source) into a subject, with the aim to provide therapeutic benefit for the subject.

That is fine Mark - it is what I've just said - no?

The point is that only antivaxxers keep on using "gene therapy" as a label implying something inherently more dangerous than other therapies (which you can bet is how it will be popularly received).

I'm sure they do that because of the way W here manages to get "gene therapy" "Mafia" "genocide" all together in most of the sentences he posts.

I mean - he does not say adenovirus vectored vaccine - being more precise about the delivery method for ChAdOx1. So clearly scientific accuracy is not his point.

It is interesting to me that Canada and Australia used to sometimes be compared to each other as having laid back, easy going people. A new comparison would now be that these two countries seem to be leading the way with heavy handed discrimination against unvaccinated people. New Brunswick, a Canadian province, is now allowing grocery stores to impose vaccine mandates. Government is getting businesses to their dirty work for them.

New Brunswick Mandates

"Even though grocery stores are generally considered essential, they do have the option to bring in a proof-of-vaccination mandate.

However, the province said "based on discussions, we expect that most retail stores, including those that sell essential goods and services, will choose to ensure two-metres distancing within their stores rather than expect proof of vaccination.""

Discrimination to prevent access to food is now optional.

I am ashamed to be Canadian

Quote from Mark U

For one, mRNA delivery systems have been called a form of 'gene therapy' for years.

That is incorrect. It is confusing because the same people who developed the mRNA vaccines are also working on gene therapy that affects the DNA. However, the two are completely separate R&D projects. See:

Rewriting the Genetic Code: A Cancer Cure In the Making | Tal Zaks | TEDxBeaconStreet

Most of this lecture is devoted to the gene therapy. He discusses mRNA vaccines from around minute 1 to 3:40. Then he changes the subject to the DNA gene therapy cancer treatments they working on.

Quote from uncertainH

"Even though grocery stores are generally considered essential, they do have the option to bring in a proof-of-vaccination mandate.

Why is this a problem? If you do not want to be vaccinated, have someone else buy your groceries, or have them delivered. Suppose you do not want to wear clothes. Ever. You want to be naked 24 hours a day. That's fine. Canada is a free country. You can live in a nudist camp or stay in your house. But you cannot go to a grocery store. That's not prejudice, because everyone is held to the same standard, and anyone can put on clothes. Anyone can be vaccinated, so if you want to go out in public, put on clothes and get vaccinated. If you don't want to, that's your problem, not ours.

Quote from uncertainH

Discrimination to prevent access to food is now optional.

If would only be discrimination if some people were incapable of getting vaccinated. In fact, a very small number of people cannot be vaccinated, and I am sure the laws and rules make an exception for them. It would only be discrimination if it excluded people for something they have no control over and cannot change, such as their sex or skin color.

Quote from uncertainH

Discrimination to prevent access to food is now optional.

That's silly. It does not prevent access to food; it prevents access to grocery stores. Nowadays all grocery stores deliver, so there is no problem getting food if you are voluntarily stuck in the house. Or, as I said, you can hire someone to go shopping for you. If you don't have the money to do that, get a free vaccine and the problem is solved. It is entirely on you to conform to the laws and regulations where you live. You cannot go shopping naked; you cannot drive without a license; you cannot urinate on the produce in the grocery store . . . there are countless things you cannot do. None of these rules are prejudicial because they apply to everyone, and everyone is capable of abiding by these rules (except severely retarded or brain-damaged people, who cannot go shopping in any case).

Quote from THHuxleynew

The point is that only antivaxxers keep on using "gene therapy" as a label implying something inherently more dangerous than other therapies

Some of them say this because they have confused this research with a different R&D project. See the lecture by Zaks of Moderna that I linked to above. Moderna is, in fact, conducting research into gene therapy with the same delivery method as the mRNA vaccines. Some of their patents refer to "gene therapy." It is confusing.

Quote from uncertainH

It is interesting to me that Canada and Australia used to sometimes be compared to each other as having laid back, easy going people. A new comparison would now be that these two countries seem to be leading the way with heavy handed discrimination against unvaccinated people. New Brunswick, a Canadian province, is now allowing grocery stores to impose vaccine mandates. Government is getting businesses to their dirty work for them.

New Brunswick may be a bit of an outlier, although I agree, yes government is getting business to do their dirty work. The propaganda from government - subsidized media has been effective on the masses.

As I recall, New Brunswick seems to have an especially heightened relationship of their health officials with big pharma in the States. The big pharma reps have been visiting them and making them feel very special that they are privy to their information and have the privilege of saving lives. So New Brunswick may be the first province to ultimately succumb to mandatory childhood vaccinations, like California and NB's neighbour, Maine. (They no longer have philosophical and religious exemptions. )