Apparently you failed biology in school. One mRNA molecule causes a single protein molecule to be synthesized in a ribosome. The vaccine doesn’t modify your DNA, it’s a one-shot deal. This is literally Biology 101.
2 Likes
NEW - Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines “dramatically increase endothelial inflammatory markers and Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) risk” as measured by the PULS cardiac test, a study recently published in “Circulation,” the most prestigious cardiology journal, finds.
Straight from the Government
The British government has spilled the beans about that fact that once you get double jabbed, you will never again be able to acquire full natural immunity.
In its Week 42 “COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report,” the U.K. Health Security Agency admitted on page 23 that “N antibody levels appear to be lower in people who acquire infection following two doses of vaccination.” It goes on to explain that this antibody drop is basically permanent.
What’s this mean?
We know the vaccines do not stop infection or transmission of the virus (in fact, the report shows elsewhere that vaccinated adults are now being infected at much HIGHER rates than the unvaccinated).
What the British are saying is they are now finding the vaccine interferes with your body’s innate ability after infection to produce antibodies against not just the spike protein but other pieces of the virus. Specifically, vaccinated people don’t seem to be producing antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, the shell of the virus, which are a crucial part of the response in unvaccinated people.
In the long term, people who take the vaccine will be far more vulnerable to any mutations in the spike protein that might come along, even if they have already been infected and recovered once, or more than once.
The unvaccinated, meanwhile, will procure lasting, if not permanent, immunity to all strains of the alleged virus after being infected with it naturally even just once.
Read it for yourself… Page 24.
From a scientist’s viewpoint, i dont think you can make such a statement. Obviously bodybuilders who take steroids have an increased risk of heart disease…however, the vaccines may have accelerated their demise. This still needs thorough investigation.
For reason’s that I don’t understand, this popped up again in my email today, half a year after the original conversation.
Since I didn’t see the post at the time, I’ll go ahead and respond to it now.
It is 100% true that I, despite all the places and sports I’ve coached, including the Chinese Olympic Team, have never been exposed to anabolics. It may be more accurate to say that I’ve never been exposed to anabolics that I’ve known of.
If the Chinese were administering anabolics to their athletes, they never let the American, British, and other European coaches know about it. There were things that were done—meetings, political training, and such—that foreigners were not permitted to be a part of, and none of us ever complained that we were not allowed to be there, and never speculated on what went on behind those closed doors. I do know, however, that the IOC subjected the athletes on my team to vigorous drug testing. I have no knowledge of what they did with other sports or teams. Whether or not any of those tests were legitimate or not was something else that the Western coaches never bothered to speculate on.
If they administered anabolics to their athletes in any of those trainings or meetings, I never knew about it, so no, to my knowledge, I have never been exposed to anabolics, and until evidence comes to light to contradict that, I will continue to state just that.
The same thing applies to my college coaching career. I’ve been on the strength staff of two D1 schools, one mid-major, and one small D1, and have coached multiple sports, including football. All those athletes have been subjected to NCAA drug testing, and in all this time, not a single one has tested positive for anabolics. I’ve seen one or two test positive for weed but never for anabolics, so if some of those athletes were taking anabolics, I never knew about it.
Genetic variables, including genetic response to AAS, and quantities complicate the potential outcomes for any individual.
Quantities complicate, in that, “more usually consequents greater and severer side-effects.” Being overweight by 10 pounds isn’t a benefit to most individual’s health, but usually doesn’t risk or cause the same side effects in an individual as being 50 pounds overweight. Similarly, an individual cycling 300 mg/week of injectable testosterone for eight weeks, then dropping back to a physiological dose of 100 mg/week for the next ten weeks likely (“likely” not “definitely”) won’t risk or experience the same side effects which cycling 900 mg/week stacks for sixteen weeks then dropping back to 100 mg/week of testosterone alone for four weeks might.
Genetics complicate in that, due to the variation among individuals, some might be predisposed to health problems and risks which AAS amplify and/or accelerate.
No way to comprehensively predict health outcomes while using any dose larger than a typical therapeutic 100 mg/week of Test dose currently exists (and even the injectable form of TRT commonly elevates hematocrit). Reasonably then, the risks should be faced and carefully deliberated by any adult considering using AAS, without deflecting those risks by “how-about-ing” the risks of other issues such as being obese, heavy tobacco smoking, and couch-potatoing. The danger from choosing to cross a busy intersection without first looking both ways doesn’t dismiss the danger from choosing to take a walk outdoors during a lightning storm. Adults ought to be free to choose whether or not to use AAS, agreed; but, maturity should include choices based on rational, informed, honest assessment of both potential benefits and detriments.
Moderation and limitation of supra-therapeutic dosages might reduce risks to the equivalent of being 10 pounds overweight, yep. But, ultimately, AAS use is a version of playing russian roulette: more milligrams and longer cycles equal more bullets in the gun, but even at the minimum, there’s going to be one round that could potentially fire.
1 Like