LOL. Nick Wright seems butthurt too!

I forgot to add that anti- vaxxers often portray themselves as victims.

And please be honest with yourself - it's a political statement you're making. Nothing more. As for mRNA technology - it has been developed for 15 years.

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Often its defined as someone who has an innate and perhaps confused distrust of government, or public health regulations and see the two as a threat to their rights, even to their deaths. And that a mandate for said vaccine or vaccination would abridge their freedom of speech or religion. Which was always folly since one can walk just about anywhere or walk into anything without a mask - even in 2020.

It was always an interesting dichotomy really. In a capitalist economy - those same corporations would offer mandates to employees, only for the same pro free market supporters to decry those mandates as un-American.

But back to the point - Rodgers is a loon. He's anti-sunscreen, doesn't believe in 9/11, thinks dolphin sex sounds are soothing, There's so much more. He passes himself off as an intellectual (he's woke in the other direction), but he really does wear tinfoil under that helmet.

---

That definition is poor. The definition should be simple. Someone who is anti-vax opposes vaccination. Period.

Someone who is against mandates of experimental mRNA covid vaccines is not anti-vax. Please stop mixing this up. It seems to be done on purpose by those who are pro mRNA covid vaccines and their mandates.

---

The Johnson and Johnson vaccine was a conventional protein-based vaccine. Safer and more proven than the vaccines used to fight and defeat infectious disease for a century. Vaccines 99.9% of anti-vaxxers have already had throughout their lives. No one was forced to take an mRNA vaccine. That is a straight up lie and obfuscation.

---

The J&J vaccine was not a conventional protein vaccine. Where did you hear that covid vaccine misinformation?

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Often its defined as someone who has an innate and perhaps confused distrust of government, or public health regulations and see the two as a threat to their rights, even to their deaths. And that a mandate for said vaccine or vaccination would abridge their freedom of speech or religion. Which was always folly since one can walk just about anywhere or walk into anything without a mask - even in 2020.

It was always an interesting dichotomy really. In a capitalist economy - those same corporations would offer mandates to employees, only for the same pro free market supporters to decry those mandates as un-American.

But back to the point - Rodgers is a loon. He's anti-sunscreen, doesn't believe in 9/11, thinks dolphin sex sounds are soothing, There's so much more. He passes himself off as an intellectual (he's woke in the other direction), but he really does wear tinfoil under that helmet.

---

That definition is poor. The definition should be simple. Someone who is anti-vax opposes vaccination. Period.

Someone who is against mandates of experimental mRNA covid vaccines is not anti-vax. Please stop mixing this up. It seems to be done on purpose by those who are pro mRNA covid vaccines and their mandates.

---

The Johnson and Johnson vaccine was a conventional protein-based vaccine. Safer and more proven than the vaccines used to fight and defeat infectious disease for a century. Vaccines 99.9% of anti-vaxxers have already had throughout their lives. No one was forced to take an mRNA vaccine. That is a straight up lie and obfuscation.

---

The J&J vaccine was not a conventional protein vaccine. Where did you hear that covid vaccine misinformation?

---

Look it up.
https://www.vcuhealth.org/news/covid-19/johnson-and-johnson-vaccine-how-is-it-different

Again, you've been lied to by people who know nothing about science or are spreading blatant lies for political purposes. You need a better source of information than Q or Infowars.

---

Do you see the word protein anywhere in your link?

It is a DNA Vaccine delivered by an adenovirus. It is not traditional. That is misleading writing intended to sell product and get shots in arms. Please stop being so smug and confident in a topic you apparently know little about. This is the same vaccine whose trials were paused because a woman in that small sample size was temporarily paralyzed by the vaccine. You need to educate yourself. Shame on you for insulting me saying I am getting my info from Qanon and Infowars.

---

You claimed it was an mRNA vaccine,

Portions (proteins) of inert (incomplete) viruses are conventional vaccines. Your immune system develops antibodies against the specific proteins of the virus. That is how vaccines work. "Delivered by DNA" is absurd. Read the link. It does not replicate. It is inert.

mRNA vaccines use mRNA to produce the proteins in your body, then your immune system develops antibodies against the proteins.

Again, the J&J vacinne was not an mRNA vaccine. It is proteins from an inert (partial) virus, which is a conventional vaccine. You were wrong and your sources were wrong, otherwise you are just lying. I think it is better to just admit you were wrong.

bear2034 said:

---

YuSeeBerkeley said:

---

Who gives a sh*t about Jimmy Kimmel? He's no Boy Scout. He's done some deplorable things throughout his career including blackface pretending to be Karl Malone and objectifying women on The Man Show. Rodgers probably got the reaction that he wanted out of Kimmel, and I just think Kimmel crying about the danger to his family was a bit much and pathetic for a supposed comedian. Again, I'm not excusing Rodgers. As I said at the outset, he probably shouldn't have said what he said. I just don't get why people here are so passionately defending Kimmel, who has no affiliation with Cal and has been a Rodgers hater for quite some time.

---

Vaccine Nazis are real.

---

You should probably read about what the Nazis did before you label anyone with that name.

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Often its defined as someone who has an innate and perhaps confused distrust of government, or public health regulations and see the two as a threat to their rights, even to their deaths. And that a mandate for said vaccine or vaccination would abridge their freedom of speech or religion. Which was always folly since one can walk just about anywhere or walk into anything without a mask - even in 2020.

It was always an interesting dichotomy really. In a capitalist economy - those same corporations would offer mandates to employees, only for the same pro free market supporters to decry those mandates as un-American.

But back to the point - Rodgers is a loon. He's anti-sunscreen, doesn't believe in 9/11, thinks dolphin sex sounds are soothing, There's so much more. He passes himself off as an intellectual (he's woke in the other direction), but he really does wear tinfoil under that helmet.

---

That definition is poor. The definition should be simple. Someone who is anti-vax opposes vaccination. Period.

Someone who is against mandates of experimental mRNA covid vaccines is not anti-vax. Please stop mixing this up. It seems to be done on purpose by those who are pro mRNA covid vaccines and their mandates.

---

The Johnson and Johnson vaccine was a conventional protein-based vaccine. Safer and more proven than the vaccines used to fight and defeat infectious disease for a century. Vaccines 99.9% of anti-vaxxers have already had throughout their lives. No one was forced to take an mRNA vaccine. That is a straight up lie and obfuscation.

---

The J&J vaccine was not a conventional protein vaccine. Where did you hear that covid vaccine misinformation?

---

Look it up.
https://www.vcuhealth.org/news/covid-19/johnson-and-johnson-vaccine-how-is-it-different

Again, you've been lied to by people who know nothing about science or are spreading blatant lies for political purposes. You need a better source of information than Q or Infowars.

---

Do you see the word protein anywhere in your link?

It is a DNA Vaccine delivered by an adenovirus. It is not traditional. That is misleading writing intended to sell product and get shots in arms. Please stop being so smug and confident in a topic you apparently know little about. This is the same vaccine whose trials were paused because a woman in that small sample size was temporarily paralyzed by the vaccine. You need to educate yourself. Shame on you for insulting me saying I am getting my info from Qanon and Infowars.

---

You claimed it was an mRNA vaccine,

Portions (proteins) of inert (incomplete) viruses are conventional vaccines. Your immune system develops antibodies against the specific proteins of the virus. That is how vaccines work.

mRNA vaccines use mRNA to produce the proteins in your body, then your immune system develops antibodies against the proteins.

Again, the J&J vacinne was not an mRNA vaccine. You were wrong and your sources were wrong, otherwise you are just lying. I think it is better to just admit you were wrong.

---

Wow, you are digging deeper in your ineptitude. You fell hook, worm, and sinker for vaccine misinformation. First of all, ai never ever said the j&j DNA vaccine was an mRNA vaccine. Secondly, DNA vaccines delivered by adenovirus is a new technology. You might as well argue that mRNA vaccines are traditional because they are delivered by a needle. You are lost here. I hope you find yourself before you resort to more lying to try to win an argument.

---

All viruses are either RNA or DNA, which in turn is made up of proteins. A virus is able to replicate inside a host. During an infection your body develops antibodies to the proteins of the virus. Traditional vaccines are portions (proteins) of virus which are inert, they cannot replicate because they are incomplete. Your body develops antibodies to the proteins and therefore antibodies to the virus. The J&J vaccine uses an inert virus (DNA, cluch my pearls!) that contains a portion of the same spike protein of the SARS-2 virus. It cannot replicate in you. It is inert. A larger amount of material needs to be in the vaccine to produce the immune response. Your body reacts with an immune response directly to the vaccine. Like it does to the proteins in pollen when you have "hay fever."

mRNA vaccines use mRNA to produce the characteristic proteins of the virus in your body similar to the way a virus replicates (though a virus produces viruses which in turn produce viruses exponentially). Each mRNA molecule in the vaccine produces only proteins, not more mRNA. Your body develops immunity to the proteins. They had a long history of testing but had never been used before on such a large scale. Caution was understandable but they have proven to be very safe. Much safer than contracting COVID which killed millions of people.

I thought you said you took the vaccine? Why are you arguing this nonsense?

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Often its defined as someone who has an innate and perhaps confused distrust of government, or public health regulations and see the two as a threat to their rights, even to their deaths. And that a mandate for said vaccine or vaccination would abridge their freedom of speech or religion. Which was always folly since one can walk just about anywhere or walk into anything without a mask - even in 2020.

It was always an interesting dichotomy really. In a capitalist economy - those same corporations would offer mandates to employees, only for the same pro free market supporters to decry those mandates as un-American.

But back to the point - Rodgers is a loon. He's anti-sunscreen, doesn't believe in 9/11, thinks dolphin sex sounds are soothing, There's so much more. He passes himself off as an intellectual (he's woke in the other direction), but he really does wear tinfoil under that helmet.

---

That definition is poor. The definition should be simple. Someone who is anti-vax opposes vaccination. Period.

Someone who is against mandates of experimental mRNA covid vaccines is not anti-vax. Please stop mixing this up. It seems to be done on purpose by those who are pro mRNA covid vaccines and their mandates.

---

The Johnson and Johnson vaccine was a conventional protein-based vaccine. Safer and more proven than the vaccines used to fight and defeat infectious disease for a century. Vaccines 99.9% of anti-vaxxers have already had throughout their lives. No one was forced to take an mRNA vaccine. That is a straight up lie and obfuscation.

---

The J&J vaccine was not a conventional protein vaccine. Where did you hear that covid vaccine misinformation?

---

Look it up.
https://www.vcuhealth.org/news/covid-19/johnson-and-johnson-vaccine-how-is-it-different

Again, you've been lied to by people who know nothing about science or are spreading blatant lies for political purposes. You need a better source of information than Q or Infowars.

---

Do you see the word protein anywhere in your link?

It is a DNA Vaccine delivered by an adenovirus. It is not traditional. That is misleading writing intended to sell product and get shots in arms. Please stop being so smug and confident in a topic you apparently know little about. This is the same vaccine whose trials were paused because a woman in that small sample size was temporarily paralyzed by the vaccine. You need to educate yourself. Shame on you for insulting me saying I am getting my info from Qanon and Infowars.

---

You claimed it was an mRNA vaccine,

Portions (proteins) of inert (incomplete) viruses are conventional vaccines. Your immune system develops antibodies against the specific proteins of the virus. That is how vaccines work.

mRNA vaccines use mRNA to produce the proteins in your body, then your immune system develops antibodies against the proteins.

Again, the J&J vacinne was not an mRNA vaccine. You were wrong and your sources were wrong, otherwise you are just lying. I think it is better to just admit you were wrong.

---

Wow, you are digging deeper in your ineptitude. You fell hook, worm, and sinker for vaccine misinformation. First of all, ai never ever said the j&j DNA vaccine was an mRNA vaccine. Secondly, DNA vaccines delivered by adenovirus is a new technology. You might as well argue that mRNA vaccines are traditional because they are delivered by a needle. You are lost here. I hope you find yourself before you resort to more lying to try to win an argument.

---

All viruses are either RNA or DNA, which in turn is made up of proteins. A virus is able to replicate inside a host. During an infection your body develops antibodies to the proteins of the virus. Traditional vaccines are portions (proteins) of virus which are inert, they cannot replicate because they are incomplete. Your body develops antibodies to the proteins and therefore antibodies to the virus. The J&J vaccine uses an inert virus (DNA, cluch my pearls!) that contains a portion of the same spike protein of the SARS-2 virus. It cannot replicate in you. It is inert. A larger amount of material needs to be in the vaccine to produce the immune response. Your body reacts with an immune response directly to the vaccine. Like it does to the proteins in pollen when you have "hay fever."

mRNA vaccines use mRNA to produce the characteristic proteins of the virus in your body similar to the way a virus replicates (though a virus produces viruses which in turn produce viruses exponentially). Each mRNA molecule in the vaccine produces only proteins, not more mRNA. Your body develops immunity to the proteins. They had a long history of testing but had never been used before on such a large scale. Caution was understandable but they have proven to be very safe. Much safer than contracting COVID which killed millions of people.

I thought you said you took the vaccine? Why are you arguing this nonsense?

---

Please just Google, "What is a DNA vaccine?' if you actually want to know the difference between a DNA vaccine, which similar to mRNA, contain a genetic code that creates a protein which in turn stimulates an immune response, and an actual protein vaccine. We can move on to your other ramblings once you look it up and can at least admit that you are 100% wrong here.

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Often its defined as someone who has an innate and perhaps confused distrust of government, or public health regulations and see the two as a threat to their rights, even to their deaths. And that a mandate for said vaccine or vaccination would abridge their freedom of speech or religion. Which was always folly since one can walk just about anywhere or walk into anything without a mask - even in 2020.

It was always an interesting dichotomy really. In a capitalist economy - those same corporations would offer mandates to employees, only for the same pro free market supporters to decry those mandates as un-American.

But back to the point - Rodgers is a loon. He's anti-sunscreen, doesn't believe in 9/11, thinks dolphin sex sounds are soothing, There's so much more. He passes himself off as an intellectual (he's woke in the other direction), but he really does wear tinfoil under that helmet.

---

That definition is poor. The definition should be simple. Someone who is anti-vax opposes vaccination. Period.

Someone who is against mandates of experimental mRNA covid vaccines is not anti-vax. Please stop mixing this up. It seems to be done on purpose by those who are pro mRNA covid vaccines and their mandates.

---

The Johnson and Johnson vaccine was a conventional protein-based vaccine. Safer and more proven than the vaccines used to fight and defeat infectious disease for a century. Vaccines 99.9% of anti-vaxxers have already had throughout their lives. No one was forced to take an mRNA vaccine. That is a straight up lie and obfuscation.

---

The J&J vaccine was not a conventional protein vaccine. Where did you hear that covid vaccine misinformation?

---

Look it up.
https://www.vcuhealth.org/news/covid-19/johnson-and-johnson-vaccine-how-is-it-different

Again, you've been lied to by people who know nothing about science or are spreading blatant lies for political purposes. You need a better source of information than Q or Infowars.

---

Do you see the word protein anywhere in your link?

It is a DNA Vaccine delivered by an adenovirus. It is not traditional. That is misleading writing intended to sell product and get shots in arms. Please stop being so smug and confident in a topic you apparently know little about. This is the same vaccine whose trials were paused because a woman in that small sample size was temporarily paralyzed by the vaccine. You need to educate yourself. Shame on you for insulting me saying I am getting my info from Qanon and Infowars.

---

You claimed it was an mRNA vaccine,

Portions (proteins) of inert (incomplete) viruses are conventional vaccines. Your immune system develops antibodies against the specific proteins of the virus. That is how vaccines work.

mRNA vaccines use mRNA to produce the proteins in your body, then your immune system develops antibodies against the proteins.

Again, the J&J vacinne was not an mRNA vaccine. You were wrong and your sources were wrong, otherwise you are just lying. I think it is better to just admit you were wrong.

---

Wow, you are digging deeper in your ineptitude. You fell hook, worm, and sinker for vaccine misinformation. First of all, ai never ever said the j&j DNA vaccine was an mRNA vaccine. Secondly, DNA vaccines delivered by adenovirus is a new technology. You might as well argue that mRNA vaccines are traditional because they are delivered by a needle. You are lost here. I hope you find yourself before you resort to more lying to try to win an argument.

---

All viruses are either RNA or DNA, which in turn is made up of proteins. A virus is able to replicate inside a host. During an infection your body develops antibodies to the proteins of the virus. Traditional vaccines are portions (proteins) of virus which are inert, they cannot replicate because they are incomplete. Your body develops antibodies to the proteins and therefore antibodies to the virus. The J&J vaccine uses an inert virus (DNA, cluch my pearls!) that contains a portion of the same spike protein of the SARS-2 virus. It cannot replicate in you. It is inert. A larger amount of material needs to be in the vaccine to produce the immune response. Your body reacts with an immune response directly to the vaccine. Like it does to the proteins in pollen when you have "hay fever."

mRNA vaccines use mRNA to produce the characteristic proteins of the virus in your body similar to the way a virus replicates (though a virus produces viruses which in turn produce viruses exponentially). Each mRNA molecule in the vaccine produces only proteins, not more mRNA. Your body develops immunity to the proteins. They had a long history of testing but had never been used before on such a large scale. Caution was understandable but they have proven to be very safe. Much safer than contracting COVID which killed millions of people.

I thought you said you took the vaccine? Why are you arguing this nonsense?

---

Please just Google, "What is a DNA vaccine?' if you actually want to know the difference between a DNA vaccine, which similar to mRNA, contain a genetic code that creates a protein which in turn stimulates an immune response, and an actual protein vaccine. We can move on to your other ramblings once you look it up and can at least admit that you are 100% wrong here.

---

The J&J vaccine used a virus with genes removed so it cannot replicate. It was inert. It was less effective than the mRNA vaccines and more expensive to produce. It is now gone from the market. Novavax replaced it as the inert virus based vaccine. Were/are you OK with Novavax?

And Google on "DNA Vaccines" results in:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_vaccine

"In August 2021, Indian authorities gave emergency approval to ZyCoV-D. Developed by Cadila Healthcare, it is the first DNA vaccine against COVID-19."

The J&j vaccine was introduced before that, in February of 2021. It was NOT a DNA vaccine. Neither is the Novavax vaccine. It was not as effective as the mRNA vaccines, but it was always an option.

Here is a more recent article from June of 2023:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10302025/

Again. DNA vaccines show a lot of promise but they are still in development. The J&J COVID vaccine was not a DNA vaccine.

GMP said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

YuSeeBerkeley said:

---

Who gives a sh*t about Jimmy Kimmel? He's no Boy Scout. He's done some deplorable things throughout his career including blackface pretending to be Karl Malone and objectifying women on The Man Show. Rodgers probably got the reaction that he wanted out of Kimmel, and I just think Kimmel crying about the danger to his family was a bit much and pathetic for a supposed comedian. Again, I'm not excusing Rodgers. As I said at the outset, he probably shouldn't have said what he said. I just don't get why people here are so passionately defending Kimmel, who has no affiliation with Cal and has been a Rodgers hater for quite some time.

---

Vaccine Nazis are real.

---

You should probably read about what the Nazis did before you label anyone with that name.

---

Did you feel like the comment was directed to you or are you defending Jimmy Kimmel?

bear2034 said:

---

GMP said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

YuSeeBerkeley said:

---

Who gives a sh*t about Jimmy Kimmel? He's no Boy Scout. He's done some deplorable things throughout his career including blackface pretending to be Karl Malone and objectifying women on The Man Show. Rodgers probably got the reaction that he wanted out of Kimmel, and I just think Kimmel crying about the danger to his family was a bit much and pathetic for a supposed comedian. Again, I'm not excusing Rodgers. As I said at the outset, he probably shouldn't have said what he said. I just don't get why people here are so passionately defending Kimmel, who has no affiliation with Cal and has been a Rodgers hater for quite some time.

---

Vaccine Nazis are real.

---

You should probably read about what the Nazis did before you label anyone with that name.

---

Did you feel like the comment was directed to you or are you defending Jimmy Kimmel?

---

I think comparing just about anyone to the Nazis is fu-king stupid. Are you fu-king stupid or are you defending the Nazis?

GMP said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

GMP said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

YuSeeBerkeley said:

---

Who gives a sh*t about Jimmy Kimmel? He's no Boy Scout. He's done some deplorable things throughout his career including blackface pretending to be Karl Malone and objectifying women on The Man Show. Rodgers probably got the reaction that he wanted out of Kimmel, and I just think Kimmel crying about the danger to his family was a bit much and pathetic for a supposed comedian. Again, I'm not excusing Rodgers. As I said at the outset, he probably shouldn't have said what he said. I just don't get why people here are so passionately defending Kimmel, who has no affiliation with Cal and has been a Rodgers hater for quite some time.

---

Vaccine Nazis are real.

---

You should probably read about what the Nazis did before you label anyone with that name.

---

Did you feel like the comment was directed to you or are you defending Jimmy Kimmel?

---

I think comparing just about anyone to the Nazis is fu-king stupid. Are you fu-king stupid or are you defending the Nazis?

---

Especially people who are trying to save lives, even if you disagree with their medical expertise.
As someone who lost family members in the Holocaust and lost family members to COVID, I can't help but find such comparisons vile and evil. I cannot believe people actually espouse them, even anonymously on the Internet. It truly saddens me.

GMP said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

GMP said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

YuSeeBerkeley said:

---

Who gives a sh*t about Jimmy Kimmel? He's no Boy Scout. He's done some deplorable things throughout his career including blackface pretending to be Karl Malone and objectifying women on The Man Show. Rodgers probably got the reaction that he wanted out of Kimmel, and I just think Kimmel crying about the danger to his family was a bit much and pathetic for a supposed comedian. Again, I'm not excusing Rodgers. As I said at the outset, he probably shouldn't have said what he said. I just don't get why people here are so passionately defending Kimmel, who has no affiliation with Cal and has been a Rodgers hater for quite some time.

---

Vaccine Nazis are real.

---

You should probably read about what the Nazis did before you label anyone with that name.

---

Did you feel like the comment was directed to you or are you defending Jimmy Kimmel?

---

I think comparing just about anyone to the Nazis is fu-king stupid. Are you fu-king stupid or are you defending the Nazis?

---

Maybe you're in love with Jimmy Kimmel then. But why?

calumnus said:

---

GMP said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

GMP said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

YuSeeBerkeley said:

---

Who gives a sh*t about Jimmy Kimmel? He's no Boy Scout. He's done some deplorable things throughout his career including blackface pretending to be Karl Malone and objectifying women on The Man Show. Rodgers probably got the reaction that he wanted out of Kimmel, and I just think Kimmel crying about the danger to his family was a bit much and pathetic for a supposed comedian. Again, I'm not excusing Rodgers. As I said at the outset, he probably shouldn't have said what he said. I just don't get why people here are so passionately defending Kimmel, who has no affiliation with Cal and has been a Rodgers hater for quite some time.

---

Vaccine Nazis are real.

---

You should probably read about what the Nazis did before you label anyone with that name.

---

Did you feel like the comment was directed to you or are you defending Jimmy Kimmel?

---

I think comparing just about anyone to the Nazis is fu-king stupid. Are you fu-king stupid or are you defending the Nazis?

---

Especially people who are trying to save lives, even if you disagree with their medical expertise.
As someone who lost family members in the Holocaust and lost family members to COVID, I can't help but find such comparisons vile and evil. I cannot believe people actually espouse them, even anonymously on the Internet. It truly saddens me.

---

I've seen your previous posts. You want everyone to get vaccinated and it really bugs you that there are people like Aaron Rodgers who don't.

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Often its defined as someone who has an innate and perhaps confused distrust of government, or public health regulations and see the two as a threat to their rights, even to their deaths. And that a mandate for said vaccine or vaccination would abridge their freedom of speech or religion. Which was always folly since one can walk just about anywhere or walk into anything without a mask - even in 2020.

It was always an interesting dichotomy really. In a capitalist economy - those same corporations would offer mandates to employees, only for the same pro free market supporters to decry those mandates as un-American.

But back to the point - Rodgers is a loon. He's anti-sunscreen, doesn't believe in 9/11, thinks dolphin sex sounds are soothing, There's so much more. He passes himself off as an intellectual (he's woke in the other direction), but he really does wear tinfoil under that helmet.

---

That definition is poor. The definition should be simple. Someone who is anti-vax opposes vaccination. Period.

Someone who is against mandates of experimental mRNA covid vaccines is not anti-vax. Please stop mixing this up. It seems to be done on purpose by those who are pro mRNA covid vaccines and their mandates.

---

The Johnson and Johnson vaccine was a conventional protein-based vaccine. Safer and more proven than the vaccines used to fight and defeat infectious disease for a century. Vaccines 99.9% of anti-vaxxers have already had throughout their lives. No one was forced to take an mRNA vaccine. That is a straight up lie and obfuscation.

---

The J&J vaccine was not a conventional protein vaccine. Where did you hear that covid vaccine misinformation?

---

Look it up.
https://www.vcuhealth.org/news/covid-19/johnson-and-johnson-vaccine-how-is-it-different

Again, you've been lied to by people who know nothing about science or are spreading blatant lies for political purposes. You need a better source of information than Q or Infowars.

---

Do you see the word protein anywhere in your link?

It is a DNA Vaccine delivered by an adenovirus. It is not traditional. That is misleading writing intended to sell product and get shots in arms. Please stop being so smug and confident in a topic you apparently know little about. This is the same vaccine whose trials were paused because a woman in that small sample size was temporarily paralyzed by the vaccine. You need to educate yourself. Shame on you for insulting me saying I am getting my info from Qanon and Infowars.

---

You claimed it was an mRNA vaccine,

Portions (proteins) of inert (incomplete) viruses are conventional vaccines. Your immune system develops antibodies against the specific proteins of the virus. That is how vaccines work.

mRNA vaccines use mRNA to produce the proteins in your body, then your immune system develops antibodies against the proteins.

Again, the J&J vacinne was not an mRNA vaccine. You were wrong and your sources were wrong, otherwise you are just lying. I think it is better to just admit you were wrong.

---

Wow, you are digging deeper in your ineptitude. You fell hook, worm, and sinker for vaccine misinformation. First of all, ai never ever said the j&j DNA vaccine was an mRNA vaccine. Secondly, DNA vaccines delivered by adenovirus is a new technology. You might as well argue that mRNA vaccines are traditional because they are delivered by a needle. You are lost here. I hope you find yourself before you resort to more lying to try to win an argument.

---

All viruses are either RNA or DNA, which in turn is made up of proteins. A virus is able to replicate inside a host. During an infection your body develops antibodies to the proteins of the virus. Traditional vaccines are portions (proteins) of virus which are inert, they cannot replicate because they are incomplete. Your body develops antibodies to the proteins and therefore antibodies to the virus. The J&J vaccine uses an inert virus (DNA, cluch my pearls!) that contains a portion of the same spike protein of the SARS-2 virus. It cannot replicate in you. It is inert. A larger amount of material needs to be in the vaccine to produce the immune response. Your body reacts with an immune response directly to the vaccine. Like it does to the proteins in pollen when you have "hay fever."

mRNA vaccines use mRNA to produce the characteristic proteins of the virus in your body similar to the way a virus replicates (though a virus produces viruses which in turn produce viruses exponentially). Each mRNA molecule in the vaccine produces only proteins, not more mRNA. Your body develops immunity to the proteins. They had a long history of testing but had never been used before on such a large scale. Caution was understandable but they have proven to be very safe. Much safer than contracting COVID which killed millions of people.

I thought you said you took the vaccine? Why are you arguing this nonsense?

---

Please just Google, "What is a DNA vaccine?' if you actually want to know the difference between a DNA vaccine, which similar to mRNA, contain a genetic code that creates a protein which in turn stimulates an immune response, and an actual protein vaccine. We can move on to your other ramblings once you look it up and can at least admit that you are 100% wrong here.

---

The J&J vaccine used a virus with genes removed so it cannot replicate. It was inert. It was less effective than the mRNA vaccines and more expensive to produce. It is now gone from the market. Novavax replaced it as the inert virus based vaccine. Were/are you OK with Novavax?

And Google on "DNA Vaccines" results in:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_vaccine

"In August 2021, Indian authorities gave emergency approval to ZyCoV-D. Developed by Cadila Healthcare, it is the first DNA vaccine against COVID-19."

The J&j vaccine was introduced before that, in February of 2021. It was NOT a DNA vaccine. Neither is the Novavax vaccine. It was not as effective as the mRNA vaccines, but it was always an option.

Here is a more recent article from June of 2023:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10302025/

Again. DNA vaccines show a lot of promise but they are still in development. The J&J COVID vaccine was not a DNA vaccine.

---

Your take on J&J is closer to correct than what you have said in the past. However, the J&J Covid vaccine is 100% a DNA vaccine. It just enters through an adenovirus vector (the only other adenovirus vaccine ever approved was j$j's recent vaccine against ebola only administered in Africa). It is not a dead virus like a traditional vaccine, which you seem to be mixing it up with. I am familiar with the other DNA vaccines that are either delivered via electroporation or a jet. That doesn't make J&J a non DNA vaccine. J&J just controls the messaging and wants to be considered "traditional.". J&J's VP of Science lead the U.S. public/private partnership to fight covid. They had the power to promote their product how they saw fit, even if it never should have been approved.

Yes, Novavax is now available and is the closest to a traditional vaccine there is. It was slow-rolled as much as possible especially after Biden signed an order where Novavax's suppliers broke their contracts to divert supplies to Pfizer, and it did not get EUA until a year after Pfizer and Moderna. When it was finally approved, it was hard to find and not marketed because the CDC was marketing Pfizer and Moderna. Novavax was not allowed to market itself until BLA, which would take at least another year to get. Novavax was not available to me until I no longer had a need for a covid vaccine.

Rodgers admitted he did not get vaccinated in August of 2022. At that point in time, Omicron was already the dominant variant and Covid was far less severe. He didn't kill anyone.

The initial Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine rollout was never designed to stop transmission of the virus, and it was never tested to see whether it did.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla was called before the European Parliament's COVID-19 committee in 2022 but did not make himself available. He sent Janine Small, president of international markets for Pfizer, in his place.

Rob Roos, a member of parliament from the Netherlands, asked Small the following question:

Quote:

---

Your take on J&J is closer to correct than what you have said in the past. However, the J&J Covid vaccine is 100% a DNA vaccine. It just enters through an adenovirus vector (the only other adenovirus vaccine ever approved was j$j's recent vaccine against ebola only administered in Africa). It is not a dead virus like a traditional vaccine, which you seem to be mixing it up with. I am familiar with the other DNA vaccines that are either delivered via electroporation or a jet. That doesn't make J&J a non DNA vaccine. J&J just controls the messaging and wants to be considered "traditional.". J&J's VP of Science lead the U.S. public/private partnership to fight covid. They had the power to promote their product how they saw fit, even if it never should have been approved.

---

I think you're really parsing the issue here. Everything I've read from John Hopkins, to Mayo, VCU, Kaiser, CDC, even Texas Children's Health/Hospital - they all say the same thing - the J&J vaccine utilizes the more traditional virus-based delivery system. J&J uses the adenovirus vector vaccine. From Mayo Clinic - this has been well clinically trialed and studied over many years. You are correct that it is a DNA vaccine. But the delivery method is absolutely traditional It has been used since the 1970s. Its in development for Ebola and also for HIV. That is the reason that it was approved so quickly - there is years and years of data behind it.

Your last sentence in the quote is pure politics and propoganda.

bear2034 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

GMP said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

GMP said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

YuSeeBerkeley said:

---

Who gives a sh*t about Jimmy Kimmel? He's no Boy Scout. He's done some deplorable things throughout his career including blackface pretending to be Karl Malone and objectifying women on The Man Show. Rodgers probably got the reaction that he wanted out of Kimmel, and I just think Kimmel crying about the danger to his family was a bit much and pathetic for a supposed comedian. Again, I'm not excusing Rodgers. As I said at the outset, he probably shouldn't have said what he said. I just don't get why people here are so passionately defending Kimmel, who has no affiliation with Cal and has been a Rodgers hater for quite some time.

---

Vaccine Nazis are real.

---

You should probably read about what the Nazis did before you label anyone with that name.

---

Did you feel like the comment was directed to you or are you defending Jimmy Kimmel?

---

I think comparing just about anyone to the Nazis is fu-king stupid. Are you fu-king stupid or are you defending the Nazis?

---

Especially people who are trying to save lives, even if you disagree with their medical expertise.
As someone who lost family members in the Holocaust and lost family members to COVID, I can't help but find such comparisons vile and evil. I cannot believe people actually espouse them, even anonymously on the Internet. It truly saddens me.

---

I've seen your previous posts. You want everyone to get vaccinated and it really bugs you that there are people like Aaron Rodgers who don't.

---

Actually it isn't one thing that bugs me about Rodgers. His vaccine stance, yeah. But the rest - omg. I mean - do you agree with what he says? What he said to Deshaun Kizer about 9/11? What he thinks of sunscreen? Dolphins? <----lmao!! Ayahuasca? His vaccine stance is just the tip of the iceberg.

For those of you that missed this wonderful slideshow, I present it to you again:

https://deadspin.com/weirdest-things-aaron-rodgers-has-ever-done-nfl-packers-1850095117

When he opens his mouth on issues not related to football (and perhaps even some related to it), he becomes fair game. And if there's one thing to keep in mind here, its that you don't want to pick a fight with someone who has a nightly national audience. You become easy prey. And that's what Rodgers is to Kimmel. This is all on Rodgers.

philly1121 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

GMP said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

GMP said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

YuSeeBerkeley said:

---

Who gives a sh*t about Jimmy Kimmel? He's no Boy Scout. He's done some deplorable things throughout his career including blackface pretending to be Karl Malone and objectifying women on The Man Show. Rodgers probably got the reaction that he wanted out of Kimmel, and I just think Kimmel crying about the danger to his family was a bit much and pathetic for a supposed comedian. Again, I'm not excusing Rodgers. As I said at the outset, he probably shouldn't have said what he said. I just don't get why people here are so passionately defending Kimmel, who has no affiliation with Cal and has been a Rodgers hater for quite some time.

---

Vaccine Nazis are real.

---

You should probably read about what the Nazis did before you label anyone with that name.

---

Did you feel like the comment was directed to you or are you defending Jimmy Kimmel?

---

I think comparing just about anyone to the Nazis is fu-king stupid. Are you fu-king stupid or are you defending the Nazis?

---

Especially people who are trying to save lives, even if you disagree with their medical expertise.
As someone who lost family members in the Holocaust and lost family members to COVID, I can't help but find such comparisons vile and evil. I cannot believe people actually espouse them, even anonymously on the Internet. It truly saddens me.

---

I've seen your previous posts. You want everyone to get vaccinated and it really bugs you that there are people like Aaron Rodgers who don't.

---

Actually it isn't one thing that bugs me about Rodgers. His vaccine stance, yeah. But the rest - omg. I mean - do you agree with what he says? What he said to Deshaun Kizer about 9/11? What he thinks of sunscreen? Dolphins? <----lmao!! Ayahuasca? His vaccine stance is just the tip of the iceberg.

For those of you that missed this wonderful slideshow, I present it to you again:

https://deadspin.com/weirdest-things-aaron-rodgers-has-ever-done-nfl-packers-1850095117

When he opens his mouth on issues not related to football (and perhaps even some related to it), he becomes fair game. And if there's one thing to keep in mind here, its that you don't want to pick a fight with someone who has a nightly national audience. You become easy prey. And that's what Rodgers is to Kimmel. This is all on Rodgers.

---

My response is who cares? Do you agree with everything that Jimmy Kimmel does or says? Jimmy Kimmel doesn't have a national audience, late night TV talk show ratings are abysmal. It looks like you've become easy prey to corporate media who suppressed diversity of thought regarding vaccines and have punished those who disagreed with them.

bearister said:

---

"The problem that many celebrities have is that they start believing that their opinion on a matter that they have no expertise in is somehow more valuable than the next guy's."
-Gary Radich

---

Didn't KNBR boot Radnich because no one cared about his opinions on celebrities or even sports for that matter?

philly1121 said:

---

Quote:

---

Your take on J&J is closer to correct than what you have said in the past. However, the J&J Covid vaccine is 100% a DNA vaccine. It just enters through an adenovirus vector (the only other adenovirus vaccine ever approved was j$j's recent vaccine against ebola only administered in Africa). It is not a dead virus like a traditional vaccine, which you seem to be mixing it up with. I am familiar with the other DNA vaccines that are either delivered via electroporation or a jet. That doesn't make J&J a non DNA vaccine. J&J just controls the messaging and wants to be considered "traditional.". J&J's VP of Science lead the U.S. public/private partnership to fight covid. They had the power to promote their product how they saw fit, even if it never should have been approved.

---

I think you're really parsing the issue here. Everything I've read from John Hopkins, to Mayo, VCU, Kaiser, CDC, even Texas Children's Health/Hospital - they all say the same thing - the J&J vaccine utilizes the more traditional virus-based delivery system. J&J uses the adenovirus vector vaccine. From Mayo Clinic - this has been well clinically trialed and studied over many years. You are correct that it is a DNA vaccine. But the delivery method is absolutely traditional It has been used since the 1970s. Its in development for Ebola and also for HIV. That is the reason that it was approved so quickly - there is years and years of data behind it.

Your last sentence in the quote is pure politics and propoganda.

---

1) Still a DNA vaccine. Other than emergency use for Ebola in Africa, DNA adenovirus vector has never been approved. Calling it traditional is marketing.

2) the J&J vaccine was marketed as a traditional alternative to mRNA, even though it wasn't. It also was originally marketed as an alternative to those allergic to the plastic, or PEG, in mRNA vaccines. It has since been silently pulled from the market because, once you take the lipstick off the pig, it has no use. So, yes, it shouldn't have been approved, especially in light of it failing p3 but being pushed through anyway.

oski003 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Quote:

---

Your take on J&J is closer to correct than what you have said in the past. However, the J&J Covid vaccine is 100% a DNA vaccine. It just enters through an adenovirus vector (the only other adenovirus vaccine ever approved was j$j's recent vaccine against ebola only administered in Africa). It is not a dead virus like a traditional vaccine, which you seem to be mixing it up with. I am familiar with the other DNA vaccines that are either delivered via electroporation or a jet. That doesn't make J&J a non DNA vaccine. J&J just controls the messaging and wants to be considered "traditional.". J&J's VP of Science lead the U.S. public/private partnership to fight covid. They had the power to promote their product how they saw fit, even if it never should have been approved.

---

I think you're really parsing the issue here. Everything I've read from John Hopkins, to Mayo, VCU, Kaiser, CDC, even Texas Children's Health/Hospital - they all say the same thing - the J&J vaccine utilizes the more traditional virus-based delivery system. J&J uses the adenovirus vector vaccine. From Mayo Clinic - this has been well clinically trialed and studied over many years. You are correct that it is a DNA vaccine. But the delivery method is absolutely traditional It has been used since the 1970s. Its in development for Ebola and also for HIV. That is the reason that it was approved so quickly - there is years and years of data behind it.

Your last sentence in the quote is pure politics and propoganda.

---

1) Still a DNA vaccine. Other than emergency use for Ebola in Africa, DNA adenovirus vector has never been approved. Calling it traditional is marketing.

2) the J&J vaccine was marketed as a traditional alternative to mRNA, even though it wasn't. It also was originally marketed as an alternative to those allergic to the plastic, or PEG, in mRNA vaccines. It has since been silently pulled from the market because, once you take the lipstick off the pig, it has no use. So, yes, it shouldn't have been approved, especially in light of it failing p3 but being pushed through anyway.

---

One of the things I love about Cal grads is we know a lot. One of the things I don't love about Cal grads is we have a lot of know-it-alls.

I have no idea which of you is technically correct, have been enjoying my popcorn watching it. By all means, carry on.

bear2034 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

GMP said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

GMP said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

YuSeeBerkeley said:

---

Who gives a sh*t about Jimmy Kimmel? He's no Boy Scout. He's done some deplorable things throughout his career including blackface pretending to be Karl Malone and objectifying women on The Man Show. Rodgers probably got the reaction that he wanted out of Kimmel, and I just think Kimmel crying about the danger to his family was a bit much and pathetic for a supposed comedian. Again, I'm not excusing Rodgers. As I said at the outset, he probably shouldn't have said what he said. I just don't get why people here are so passionately defending Kimmel, who has no affiliation with Cal and has been a Rodgers hater for quite some time.

---

Vaccine Nazis are real.

---

You should probably read about what the Nazis did before you label anyone with that name.

---

Did you feel like the comment was directed to you or are you defending Jimmy Kimmel?

---

I think comparing just about anyone to the Nazis is fu-king stupid. Are you fu-king stupid or are you defending the Nazis?

---

Especially people who are trying to save lives, even if you disagree with their medical expertise.
As someone who lost family members in the Holocaust and lost family members to COVID, I can't help but find such comparisons vile and evil. I cannot believe people actually espouse them, even anonymously on the Internet. It truly saddens me.

---

I've seen your previous posts. You want everyone to get vaccinated and it really bugs you that there are people like Aaron Rodgers who don't.

---

Actually it isn't one thing that bugs me about Rodgers. His vaccine stance, yeah. But the rest - omg. I mean - do you agree with what he says? What he said to Deshaun Kizer about 9/11? What he thinks of sunscreen? Dolphins? <----lmao!! Ayahuasca? His vaccine stance is just the tip of the iceberg.

For those of you that missed this wonderful slideshow, I present it to you again:

https://deadspin.com/weirdest-things-aaron-rodgers-has-ever-done-nfl-packers-1850095117

When he opens his mouth on issues not related to football (and perhaps even some related to it), he becomes fair game. And if there's one thing to keep in mind here, its that you don't want to pick a fight with someone who has a nightly national audience. You become easy prey. And that's what Rodgers is to Kimmel. This is all on Rodgers.

---

My response is who cares? Do you agree with everything that Jimmy Kimmel does or says? Jimmy Kimmel doesn't have a national audience, late night TV talk show ratings are abysmal. It looks like you've become easy prey to corporate media who suppressed diversity of thought regarding vaccines and have punished those who disagreed with them.

---

You remind me of Martin Short's Nathan Thurm character. lol I say he's on national television and you come back with "no because ratings are abysmal". It's funny reading the mental gymnastics and redirects you're doing to defend Rodgers.

And your corporate media comment is hilarious. You do know that MSNBC is owned by Comcast, right? ABC - Disney. Fox - Newscorp. This only really proves that you're getting your media from a Breitbart or Infowars - or perhaps OAN. Pillars of impartiality.

Again - this isn't about Kimmel. It's about Rodgers. Kimmel is mocking Rodgers for his vaccine stance among all his other zingers. I don't see or hear Kimmel expounding a firm political position in his monologue. He mocks Trump, Giuliani, et al. So of course we know his politics. But he's mocking Rodgers for his bufoonery. It's quite simple.