Vaccine mandates

stunspore

Member
Normally mRNA is made in the nucleus of the cell(transcription), and then it leave the nucleus. But the mRNA in these vaccines, are produced in a lab. The lab creates a strand of genetic material. This strand enters the cytoplasm of the cell, and begins coding for the viral spike protein(ribosomes)
Just to correct or to clear, the ribosomes are the vehicle in which mrna is used to make the spike protein.
So not sure what the fear is. unless you suspect that there is more to the mrna - like big corporations have chucked extra "recipes" in it and you are paranoid about it. Whether the spike proteins came from your cells or from the standard "produced from infected cells outside the body, like chicken eggs".... big deal?
 

stunspore

Member
Ethanol-->Acetaldehyde(toxic)-->Acetate(nontoxic)-->[Acetal CoA-->fatty acid synthesis]
I would be interested in seeing more research into how ethanoate, the same stuff as in vinegar, becomes fat (triglycerides). Please point to a credible webpage on this. I assume you are scared of adding vinegar to your cooking as well? Vinegar uses ethanoic acid, which becomes ethanoate.
The logic appears that "any amount of ethanol is poisonous" because it becomes ethanoate and later, fat.

Then an oxymoronic concept, of which is reminiscent of Tony Abbot's double speak.
When did I say that eating fruit was safe? I will gladly say now that eating fruit is very safe. I will also say now that consuming any amount of alcohol is toxic to the body. Both statements are true. Although some fruits have trace amounts of alcohol in them, the liver cell enzymes are more than capable of metabolizing this tiny amounts of alcohol. Are you again trying to use absolutes to sell your nonsense?
No you are using absolutes by saying any amounts of alcohol is poisonous but eating fruit containing alcohol is safe. There's cognitive dissonance there.
The other thing of course, is that you recognise dosage makes the poison, not the actual substance itself.
 

stunspore

Member
I personally don't need peer reviewed research, to tell me that I should not question the obvious, and to ignore the lies and broken promises of these leaders! Unless everyone is dropping dead around me, I don't give a shit who you are, I'm not going to trick my immune system into believing that I am infected. With a disease that I don't have, and may never have. What you do is your business, not mine.
Indeed, most people who cling to pseudoscience don't need peer reviewed research - it contradicts their world view which they are heavily emotionally invested in.
And yep, your choice to vaccinate or not is your choice. Your need to influence others to your choice though, isn't right though - when it is contrary to mainstream science. It's bit too cult-like and it's the job of the more rational people to prevent that from happening.
 

stunspore

Member
Here is another rudimentary and common sense notion, that is even more obvious. As more and more people become infected, and more and more people recover, that will leave less and less people who can be infected. Is this not also a way how "herd immunity" can be achieved??
Of course you have people that can catch it again and again.
And you're assuming it remains the omicron variant - which may ofc mutate, and will do so, because we know that survivors of each generation have opportunities to acquire new genetic material or retain effective ones to produce that potential killer variant.
Why give omicron a chance to become more lethal?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Actually this has been a mandatory thing prior to covid.
Evidence please! NOT MORE MOUTH, and unsupported assertions! Pseudoscience or science!

Yep this is why your pseudoscience is a sham - all that matters is freedom of self and not the safety of others. It really wasn't ever about the vaccine. that's just part of the excuse to justify your choice and infringement of freedom.
Are you saying that, the government should be allowed to force anyone, to put whatever they want into their body without their informed consent? Just as long as they can claim that they are doing it for the safety of others? Do you know how many bodies have been sacrificed, under the headings of threats to our "National Security", "Sovereignty and Democracy", or "Public Safety and Interests"?? Millions!! There are limits, even for governments. Forcing anyone to stick anything into their body, without their consent, goes beyond that limit!

If this is not about taking away our freedom to choose to be vaccinated, then what is this about? There would never be rallies, demonstrations, marches, or any public outrage, if it WERE NOT FOR THESE GOVERNMENT IMPOSED VACCINE MANDATES, YOU MORON!! Do you really think anyone gives a shit if you voluntarily choose to be the government's lab rats?? No one! But once you start shaming, coercing, discriminating, and making people choose between jab or job, then yes, this is absolutely about protecting our freedom of choice!

You can make-up all the straw man narratives, or ball-face lies you want, to fit your confirmation bias. But it will always sound to me, like you're just trying to avoid facing the obvious truth. This is NOT suppose to be N. Korea. It just amazes me, why you can't see the dangers that are created, when anyone is allowed stick whatever they want, into another human being. Without their informed consent.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Just to correct or to clear, the ribosomes are the vehicle in which mrna is used to make the spike protein.
If you mean for clarity, then YES. Ribosomes are the micro-machines for making proteins from amino acids. It is the vehicle in which amino acids are translated into proteins at a rate of 200 per minute.

So not sure what the fear is. unless you suspect that there is more to the mrna - like big corporations have chucked extra "recipes" in it and you are paranoid about it.
We only have the ingredients that were submitted to the FDA, by these pharmaceutical companies. But lets look at the ingredients that they did list. Oh, and when they say that they are examining every single ingredient of this vaccine, that doesn't mean that these are ALL of the ingredients. That would b a poor interpretation!!

Potassium Chloride(toxic, and causes side effects)
Monobasic potassium phosphate(toxic, and causes side effects)
Dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate(toxic, and causes side effects)
Distearoylphosphatidylcholine(toxic nanoparticle, harmful if absorbed through skin)
ALC-0315(a synthetic lipid component of lipid nanoparticles, toxicity not known)
ALC-0159(another synthetic lipid component of lipid nanoparticles. Toxicity not known).


Why wouldn't any rational person want to err on the side of caution, when they are openly being coerced, threatened, discriminated, shamed, and forced to stick this unnecessary shit into their body? The urgency is just deafening! It is sheer hypocrisy to claim that consent before vaccination is mandatory in Australia, and still maintain this level of public duress! But all the vaccine suppliers are free from any indemnity claims(the government pays).

Whether the spike proteins came from your cells or from the standard "produced from infected cells outside the body, like chicken eggs".... big deal?
There are three cells that can be infected once you stick this shit into your deltoid. Muscle cells, tissue cells, and dendritic cells. None are genetically capable of producing viral protein spikes naturally. None are normally capable of sending whole viral spikes to the surface of the cell. Why do you listen to the media's children's version of what actually happens. Please take a look at this video, and see just how this Covid-induced protein synthesis actually does happen.


Since this vaccine is directly responsible for adverse events, like Guillain-Barré Syndrome, Myocarditis and Pericarditis, TTS, the increase in cancer and other comorbidity deaths, and the fact there are no live/attenuated pathogens in this vaccine, IS CERTAINLY A BIG DEAL TO ME!! But hey, this is all just pseudoscience, right??
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
No you are using absolutes by saying any amounts of alcohol is poisonous but eating fruit containing alcohol is safe. There's cognitive dissonance there.
The only thing that is absolutely true, is that, THE CONSUMPTION of ANY AMOUNT OF ETHYL ALCOHOL IS TOXIC TO THE BODY. Because this toxin cannot be stored in the liver, it must be metabolized immediately. Everything else out of your mouth is poor logic, lies, fallacies, and ignorance. Did you really think that I was saying, that eating fruit, or using vinegar(5% Acetic acid), is toxic or dangerous to the body? NO, BUT THE ALCOHOL IN THEM IS!!! So why this nonsense of trying to equating, "..any amount of alcohol is toxic to the body, with "..but eating fruit containing alcohol is safe."? Alcohol is still toxic to the body in any amounts!!!

It is NOT cognitive dissonance here. It is just simply a true fact. Do you really think that arsenic, carbon monoxide, cyanide, or nicotine, are NOT toxic to the body in any amount? Does this mean, that eating potatoes, tomatoes, eggplants, rice, poultry, lettuce and mushrooms, almonds and spinach, turnips, and red meat products, NOT Safe?? ALL of these foods contain small amounts of one of these toxins in them. Are these toxins still toxic to the body in any amount? Absolutely! Are you saying that they're not?

I would be interested in seeing more research into how ethanoate, the same stuff as in vinegar, becomes fat (triglycerides).
Not sure what you are saying here. We can make acetate from the acetic acid in vinegar. Even in a Highschool chem lab. Acetate IS a saturated fatty acid. It is called a short-chain fatty acid. We know that fatty acids are the building blocks that make up triglycerides. Just like monosaccharides make up disaccharide, that make up sugars and starches. We also know that Acetate produces the enzyme Acetyl CoA. This enzyme is used in many biochemical cycles, INCUDING LIPID BIOSYNTHESIS. But again, this is all just pseudoscience, right?


So again, what is it that you are trying to say here?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Indeed, most people who cling to pseudoscience don't need peer reviewed research - it contradicts their world view which they are heavily emotionally invested in.
And yep, your choice to vaccinate or not is your choice. Your need to influence others to your choice though, isn't right though - when it is contrary to mainstream science. It's bit too cult-like and it's the job of the more rational people to prevent that from happening.
Unlike you, the only thing that I cling to is the truth. That is, anything that is supported by a convergence of overwhelming evidence. Including all the evidence by omissions, and using only selective facts. I'm an Australian, not a fucking cultist!!

How many times have I said, I don't give a shit what you choose to put into your body. It is none of my business. But when people like you continue to denigrate, insult, shame, discriminate, fine and arrest me, for essentially NOT being vaccinated, then it is YOUR INFLUENCE THAT ISN'T RIGHT!! It is the genetic nature of some people to just do what they're told. I'm not those people. Before I put anything into my body(or my kids), I'm going to know all there is to know about it. Not because some expert tells me that, "she'll be right, mate!".

Of course you have people that can catch it again and again.
And you're assuming it remains the omicron variant - which may ofc mutate, and will do so, because we know that survivors of each generation have opportunities to acquire new genetic material or retain effective ones to produce that potential killer variant.
Why give omicron a chance to become more lethal?
Evidence man, please!! How many unvaccinated people have been reinfected? What evidence suggest that Omicron will mutate into a more deadlier virus, and kill us all. Just fostering irrational hysterics, and rationalizing idiocy! Everything that I predicted since 2020 has come true. Eventually all unvaccinated people will be arrested, or fined, if they can't produce their vaccine papers. Since, vaccinated people are still being infected and dying, their lies are being exposed. First the numbers of unvaccinated were thrown under the bus. Then, the excuse will be, that they didn't have enough vaccines. How many lies is it going to take? There will always be a new spin to use to withhold your freedoms, even if there is 100% of the population fully vaccinated. The goal post will just keep changing.

So far, 13 variants! What other vaccines has produce this many variants? No other vaccine uses this mRNA method, where everything is artificial. Where there are no live pathogens, no real attenuate pathogens, and no real viral antigens. Nothing about this vaccine is natural. The old vaccines used REAL pathogens to produce antibodies. Antibodies that could recognize NOT just a foreign protein, but the entire pathogen. Hence why so few variants. As long as we keep cranking out fake viral proteins, this virus it will just keep cranking out new variants. I mean 13 variants, and still no raised eyebrows?

Do you know why this vaccine method was abandoned for so many years? Because the body will destroy any mRNA that it finds floating around in the tissues. It tries to protect the body from the very thing that this vaccine does to it. This is the Law of Natural Compensation. Now this law is the only pseudoscience that I do believe in!
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
I can't remember the context in which I used those words. But if I did, then I sincerely apologize for saying them. Could you point out the post where I've said them. The second part, even you can answer. Here are more truths for you to dismiss.

New ABS data released over COVID-19 deaths in Australia (msn.com)

Your quote posted on Sunday at 3.08

The reality is, that elderly people will eventually die of something.
 

stunspore

Member
Potassium Chloride(toxic, and causes side effects) - potassium ions are found in foods like bananas, and chloride is found in table salt. They are soluble - meaning that they would mix in the body if you had table salt with bananas ... like when you have cooked banana recipes like banana bread??
Monobasic potassium phosphate - again, phosphate can be found in food, and potassium in food. they are both soluble. even if you had them separate, they can mix (and still no reaction) in the body.

As for the others, i wouldn't know offhand, but so far... an indication of a no nothing shell.
As for the other comments, not sure if i can waste more time.
Yes, shell you are free to comment about mandates, but not your fake science. You can comment on your fears about it, but not your make-belief of how things work.

"Actually this has been a mandatory thing prior to covid." - that was a reference that aged care staff had compulsory flu shots before covid - which i think you doubted happen. A simple google check shows that this is a regulation.

"Do you really think that arsenic, carbon monoxide, cyanide, or nicotine, are NOT toxic to the body in any amount?" - the body has ability to tolerate some amount -> hence it is not considered toxic. Just like alcohol if low amounts. To say drinking let's say 1 gram of alcohol in a drink vs 1 gram of alcohol in the total fruits and say that's not the same... - that's the cognitive dissonance expected of a cultist.

As for the conversion of alcohol to fat - sure you made acetic acid. Now show me the pathway from acetic acid to triglyceride. Just because it is a very short (2 C long) carboxylic acid, so you might nicknamed it short chain fatty acid, doesn't mean it will directly convert to a triglyceride. I breathe in carbon dioxide all the time and i'm not about to convert that to sugar anytime soon.

Unlike you, the only thing that I cling to is the truth. That is, anything that is supported by a convergence of overwhelming evidence. Including all the evidence by omissions, and using only selective facts. I'm an Australian, not a fucking cultist!! - and yep - that makes Shell a cultist. A cultist doesn't need real science, just fake science to justify some sort of way of living - in this case, government intervention aimed to save lives (but maybe not Shell's).

Evidence man, please!! How many unvaccinated people have been reinfected? - I don't know the people personally - but it is in the media. Which you distrust, unless it's from facebook or some other conspiracy website.

Either way, it appears Shell is just stubbornly a person who doesn't want to do what's been told. Either rational enough but has to make up science to justify to one's self, or irrational enough that real science can't knock any sense up there.

It's fine. Feel free to not follow government mandates. But don't spread misinformation - especially since you can't provide credible research, data or for that matter support. And no, Craig kelly is not a credible source.
Feel free to attend those antivax rallies. Can't guarantee you will catch covid, but at least you can feel like you are in a like-minded crowd.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Your quote posted on Sunday at 3.08
Firstly, it was 6.08am. And secondly, I should have known that you would have taken my statement out of context. The entire statement in context was,

"As for caring. I care for every human on the planet. Some more than others. But death is a part of the cycle of life, and no one is immortal. The reality is, that elderly people will eventually die of something. The flu is NOT the first thing that comes to mind!".

But if you still feel that this statement in context, represents a callous insensitivity to our elderly Australians, then I apologize. It was certainly never my intention.
 

stunspore

Member
Firstly, it was 6.08am. And secondly, I should have known that you would have taken my statement out of context. The entire statement in context was,

"As for caring. I care for every human on the planet. Some more than others. But death is a part of the cycle of life, and no one is immortal. The reality is, that elderly people will eventually die of something. The flu is NOT the first thing that comes to mind!".

But if you still feel that this statement in context, represents a callous insensitivity to our elderly Australians, then I apologize. It was certainly never my intention.
I thought it was more like, elderly people are not worth the investment in saving their lives when i read that. Like don't need to increase spending in the aged care sector to improve their waning lives or something. Or that a infectious staff (preventable with a vaccine) who didn't stay home got some elderly people sick is some "oh well, a pity"
Glad to know Shell isnt' that heartless.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
That is what Gordon said on OzPol.
Firstly, it was 6.08am. And secondly, I should have known that you would have taken my statement out of context. The entire statement in context was,

"As for caring. I care for every human on the planet. Some more than others. But death is a part of the cycle of life, and no one is immortal. The reality is, that elderly people will eventually die of something. The flu is NOT the first thing that comes to mind!".

But if you still feel that this statement in context, represents a callous insensitivity to our elderly Australians, then I apologize. It was certainly never my intention.

It's not about what I felt, it's how it reads.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
It's not about what I felt, it's how it reads.
Yes, that's exactly how it reads, when you read it OUT OF CONTEXT! So why didn't you add the rest of my statements? Quoting out of context is a logical fallacy(informal). It is when a person selects a quote from the entire passage, and then try to distort its intended meaning. For example,

"This was a fantastic movie, as long as you aren't looking for plot or character development.".

If you simple quote, "Shell said this is a fantastic movie.", then you would be distorting the meaning. You would be taking a statement that was meant to be taken ironically, and changing it to be taken literally. My statement in context only meant, that within the circle of life everyone will die of something. Including our elderly!

But this is exactly the cowardly cheap-shots that snarky trolls like you do. You try and discredit people who disagree with you, and actually do know what they're talking about. Normally, I just ignore you because you have nothing to offer, except comic relief. But I really thought that I might have been disrespectful and insensitive to our elderly. I should have known that I was just being misrepresented again by a silly troll!!! Trolls only argue for the sake of argument, not for knowledge, understanding, or truths. They only argue when their fragile ego and pride is bruised. I should have just continued ignoring you. My bad!
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Yes, that's exactly how it reads, when you read it OUT OF CONTEXT! So why didn't you add the rest of my statements?
No, it reads exactly the same way with or without the rest of your gibberish around it.

For example,

"This was a fantastic movie, as long as you aren't looking for plot or character development.".

If you simple quote, "Shell said this is a fantastic movie.", then you would be distorting the meaning.
I actually agree........ because in that example you quoted only PART of a sentence.
In the extract you are crying over, I quoted the sentence in full. Now stop your crying
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
"Do you really think that arsenic, carbon monoxide, cyanide, or nicotine, are NOT toxic to the body in any amount?" - the body has ability to tolerate some amount -> hence it is not considered toxic. Just like alcohol if low amounts. To say drinking let's say 1 gram of alcohol in a drink vs 1 gram of alcohol in the total fruits and say that's not the same... - that's the cognitive dissonance expected of a cultist.
If you believe that ingesting/inhaling carbon monoxide, nicotine, arsenic, cyanide, or even ethanol, in any amounts is not toxic to the body, then you are a bloody idiot! And, no real chem instructor would ever say this! Just because low dosages of these poisons/toxins don't kill you, doesn't somehow mean that they are no longer a poison/toxin! They are still toxic to the body, you idiot! And, the body will react immediately to get rid of them, regardless of the amounts. But, if you want to believe that these chemicals are not toxic to the body in any amounts, then be my guest to test this hypothesis.

Yes, shell you are free to comment about mandates, but not your fake science. You can comment on your fears about it, but not your make-belief of how things work.
Just more of the same huff and bluff. What science that I've presented is fake? What explanations of how things work, was just make-believe? You do a lot of accusing, but I don't see anything to back it up. Other than more inferences and insinuations.

Here is another question for you to ignore, avoid, and dismiss. Two people are sitting in a restaurant. One is vaccinated, and the other is not. The unvaccinated person is asked too leave, and the vaccinated person can stay. Can't the vaccinated person be infected with Covid-19? Since there are MORE vaccinated people with Covid-19, it would seem more logical that vaccinated people should be the ones asked to leave. Based on the statistical risks alone. Right?

But of course, the government's only aim is to get every man woman child and pet, to to stick this poison into their body. Year after year after year, Right? It doesn't give a shit if people are still being infected and dying. Based on the simple stats, these vaccines clearly can't protect you from either. Right? Since vaccinated people are still being infected and dying, they clearly are NOT working. Other than allowing this virus enough time to mutate into more variants. But the truth that is shown everyday in your face just don't matter. You are just too stupid, complacent, ignorant, or indifferent to even see it.

Evidence man, please!! How many unvaccinated people have been reinfected? - I don't know the people personally - but it is in the media. Which you distrust, unless it's from facebook or some other conspiracy website.
This tells me everything about you. You really are full of shit! Huffing and bluffing, and faking an understanding of the science you claim to know. From what I've seen you know very little. The question was simple, but was deflected using lies, and attacking my credibility. The answer is not in the media! I do not mistrust the media! And, I don't even know any conspiracy sites. Just one lie after another, to protect your ignorance. You have no idea how many recovered unvaccinated people have been reinfected, period. This is a very important point. If we could compare the number of infected vaccinated people to the reinfected recovered unvaccinated people, we could verify if vaccinated immunity offers more protection than natural immunity. It would be simple to do. Just count the number of those recovered unvaccinated people, prior to vaccines, and see how many of those were reinfected. Then count number of people who are vaccinated, and see how many of them have been infected. Just what do you think the results would be? But then again, the results would be only pseudoscience to people like you anyway. Right??

So, unless you can actually prove or demonstrate that my facts are wrong, my logic is wrong, or simply answer any of my questions, you are nothing more than a sad little misguided puppet to me. Trying to sound like you understand the bullshit that the Government is shoving into your head. I am a prochoice believer. And, there are hundreds of thousands of REAL like-minded Australians who also feel the same way I do. We believe that no Government should have the power to make policies, that can force people to put anything they want into their body without their consent. The most obvious reason is, that these policies can be open to abuse and corruption. We are NOT people who don't believe that all vaccines are bad.

We are the non-religious cult who believe that every human being should have the basic human right, to choose/decide what goes into their body! This choice should not be achieved through force, coercion, discrimination, holding jobs and personal freedoms hostage, and shaming, and threatening with fines and imprisonment. If you agree, then you belong to this same cult!!

As for the conversion of alcohol to fat - sure you made acetic acid. Now show me the pathway from acetic acid to triglyceride. Just because it is a very short (2 C long) carboxylic acid, so you might nicknamed it short chain fatty acid, doesn't mean it will directly convert to a triglyceride. I breathe in carbon dioxide all the time and i'm not about to convert that to sugar anytime soon.
Actually I was initially talking about Ethanol to Acetate. Acetate is the conjugate base of Acetic Acid, That is, the carbon in the carboxyl group is removed. This means, that Acetate is an anion(neg), and Acetic acid is an organic compound that is neutral. BOTH ARE SHORT CHAINED FATTY ACIDS. Triglycerides is formed by 3 fatty acids, and glycerol(which occurs naturally in the body). Here is one pathway that Acetic Acid can use, to actually regulate the metabolism of triglycerides.


Although, I am no chemists, I'm not quite sure what you are asking. I stated originally that Alcohol is converted to fat. Is this fat(triglycerides) NOT STORED IN THE LIVER?? Does the liver NOT covert alcohol to fat? So prove it! Or, are you just fishing with these silly questions? And, just waiting to exploit a mistake? Or, do you really have something to contribute here? Other than more accusations, more unsupported conclusions, and more blatant misrepresentations? This is becoming boring. I produce everything, and you produce nothing but more lies and questions!
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
No, it reads exactly the same way with or without the rest of your gibberish around it.
So now context is gibberish?? Just ignore what a person means from the context of their statements. Just isolate a sentence or word out of context, and exploit/distort them to mean whatever you want! Fuck the context of the meaning! Fuck any complete thoughts. Just pick and chose whatever statement you want, and ignore the true context of its meaning. And, if the person tells you that that is not what he meant, and shows the context in which he meant it, you just call him a whiner, and that his context is just gibberish. You are intellectually a dishonest conman, and truly a real piece of work.

We are definitely done here! I should have known better to argue with any who believes they are right, simply because they say so!
 
Last edited:

stunspore

Member
I'm not quite sure what you are asking. I stated originally that Alcohol is converted to fat.
Based on known chemistry - i am not aware how acetic acid/acetate ->fat (triglyceride). And it seems like you had a fruitless internet search, so you put the onus of me proving a negative -> which is ridiculous. If there was an established pathway, it would be there in the research by now, since alcohol interaction is well studied. The triglycerides are produced from long chain fatty acids -> and there's not a pathway i am aware that takes the 2 carbon chain acetate/acetic acid and joins them up to make a long chain fatty acid. In addition, "That is, the carbon in the carboxyl group is removed. " -> i think you must mean the hydrogen in the carboxyl group. Removing carbon from the carboxyl group... that would be bit too weird. It's ok, a typo?
 
Top