To humans.

Please cut and paste the quote for that.

This is another case where I was clear in what I was saying, and you blatantly repackage it another way, and argue against that.

The first line of my post explains that the concept isn't remotely new, and I posted sources to establish that fact.

>>This article cites the journey of a researcher dating back
>to
>>the 90's:
>>
>>https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-once-dismissed-idea-became-a-leading-technology-in-the-covid-vaccine-race/
>
>
>That article actually confirms the fact that mRNA vaccines had
>never been done on a large scale prior to this.

Show me where I said it did. Again: give me the exact quote.

And again: the point was establishing that this is not a new concept


In fact, it
>calls these companies vaccines "experimental". This is why I'm
>asking you cite which part of these articles you think are
>relevant, because it kinda seems like you aren't reading
>them.

The information in these links are relevant to establishing that this ia not a new concept, as stated in the firat line of my post.

>>This one cites the history of mRNA vaccine research and
>>trials:
>>
>>https://speakingofresearch.com/2021/08/27/human-mrna-vaccine-trials-in-the-2010s-a-history-lesson-in-animal-research/

>Speaking of sources, one of the only studies there that
>included human trials (the flu viruses joint) was funded by a
>Moderna Therapeutics venture, AND the human trials were cited
>as ONGOING.


That's your issue tho. This particular convo
>wasn't about sources for me.

Clearly. It was about you citing unsubstantiated claims. It was some "just saying what people are saying", which is absolutely useless.

>Most importantly tho, I asked if mRNA vaccines had been done
>in humans on a large scale before. Is it safe to say your
>answer is 'no'?

Yes. This is a wierd statement though, since in this same post you tried taking me to task for the fact that these don't state that they've been used on a large scale basis in humans, despite me never once saying or even implying that to be the case.

>>This is an article from 2018, citing progress that had, at
>>that point, largely overcome hurdles of instability and
>>inefficiency in vivo delivery of mRNA. It cites the promise
>of
>>mRNA vaccines, up to and including use as a cancer vaccine.
>>
>>https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243
>>
>>You ask about what historically constitutes a vaccine, and
>>whether or not it's included RNA injection into humans.
>>
>>Well, it's clearly happened prior to COVID.
>
>
>
>There's no way you read that article.

False. But keep doing your lil grandstanding.

..You're claiming it says
>stuff it doesn't say.

Let's do this:

You tell me what I said it says. Quote exactly what I said about this one, and I'll reply directly to that claim.

>In fact, very early in the article, it refers to " live
>attenuated and inactivated pathogens and subunit vaccines" as
>"CONVENTIONAL VACCINES" and this is in 2018 (This article just
>answered "yes" to question 1). It says the 90s trials were
>done in mice and rats.

I'll address this after you quote what I said about the article.

>The article is literally talking about
>the POTENTIAL of mRNA vaccines... in 2018.

>But you're telling
>me mRNA vaccines were historically issued on a large scale TO
>HUMANS prior to covid? Lol.

Once again: quote me. Chapter and verse.

Please show me where I said this. It's very cringe to watch you be so smug over something that never happened. But it's pretty clewr that you're more interested in the performance aspect of this, than the actual discussion.

>Which


I pulled the answer to question #1 for you.
>Can you read your own articles well enough to find answers? Or
>are you just posting links, thinking you're accomplishing
>something by citing sources that don't prove your points?

In each exchange with you, I clearly stated my point, and cited relevant sources that made said point.

This is not up for debate. It's just a fact. That you keep arguing things you've only imagined I've said is your own problem.


>>You ask these questions, but haven't expressed any actual
>>problem with them.
>
>
>You're losing the plot here.

I'm not losing anythin

Problems are irrelevant, because
>the fact that the technology is new is enough to make it
>different from prior vaccines done on a large scale in most
>folks lifetime.

No, problems are actually completely relevant here. If the issue is juat that it's new technology, that's irrelevant.

The fact it's "different" is irrelevant.

What matters is whether or not it's successful in it's expressed goal as a vaccine, and whether or not there are significant problems with it.

>Hell, your own links tell you that. He asked
>why people are so skeptical about this one as opposed to
>vaccines of the past. Your own links describe the method as
>experimental as late as 2018.

Yes. That experimentation is a critical part of the process of bringing it "live", so to speak. And that's why each of these sources is relevant.

Because establishing that there is a long history of research leading up to this point is far more relevant to the issue of mRNA vaccines than your empty questions.

It's funny, you're trying to insult me here, saying shit like I didn't read, all because you're too locked into arguing against thimgs I haven't said.

You simultaneously acknowledge that I didn't reply in a way that adhered to your gish gallop of questions, and respond as though I somehow failed in an attempt to do just that.

You're too busy trying to grandstand to see it though.

>I know you like to argue and
>pick fights, but sometimes you could avoid that by just
>keeping in mind why the conversation even started in the first
>place.

Please. This is is just about the dumbest statement anyone's made in this post. This board is brimming with countless arguments and fights- and your name is common as anyone else in those exchanges.

Moreover, between the two of us, you're the one that keeps trying to make it a fight. You've taken several potshots, this one included, that have absolutely no place in the discussion other than to be antagonistic.

I know why the conversation started. That doesn't change what you posted, nor did it change your defensive ass response to me telling you the people behind those claims have credibility problems.