I don't attack the vaccines as a useful tool in many cases, but the way in that they are/were marketed and mandated and the way in that sceptics are/were treate

I don't attack the vaccines as a useful tool in many cases, but the way in that they are/were marketed and mandated and the way in that sceptics are/were treated, as well as the way in that concerns about adverse reactions are treated. > That’s because the vaccines did a great job of preventing infection for a good year or so until newer variants came in. Protection against infection with two doses of the mRNA vaccine has dropped from something like >90% in the original trials to <50% with the newest variants. But wasn't that to be expected, because viruses mutate? It was surely mentioned by many when it started, but that did not stop the discrimination. > First, the spike protein produced from mRNA vaccines is not a pathogen. If it is not the spike protein, then what is most likely causing post-mRNA myocarditis? > Second, mRNA vaccines do not reproduce or replicate. That's not what I claimed, but that even after 8 weeks new spike protein can be produced. If spike protein is likely to cause myocarditis and potentially other adverse reactions and spike protein is still produced 8 weeks after injection, then delayed reactions seem reasonable. Public claims were that spike protein only gets produced for a very short amount of time, while there were never actual numbers. Because nobody knew, I guess.