|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 23, 2023 9:55:17 GMT -6
Peer reviewed research funded by Big Pharma you mean. Robert Kennedy nailed it when he pointed out if there had been an approved therapeutic to treat Covid such as Ivermectin then they never would have received emergency authorization to sell their vaccine. The patents on Ivermectin had long expired so Big Pharma couldn't make huge profits off it. If they could have still controlled it's marketing, then it would have been championed by them and all the "scientists" in their pay. IF there had been a cure we wouldn't have had a problem. You would have us believe the cure existed and was somehow suppressed.
Yet you point out how in the absence of a new drug, governments and others tried these supposed "cures" without very much success.
IF there had been a cure there would have been an army of academics and researchers publishing about it, the data of that use was not funded or controlled by the industry.
You cite the profit in a given year from approval for use of a new patented drug. That does not suppress use of drugs no longer under patent protection. There are many examples of daily widespread response to other disease where low cost drugs are the norm, and where health care professions and public health make recommendations of their use.
And, after all, companies WITHOUT a new drug in the pipeline, certainly had incentive to market those existing drugs if there was evidence they worked. They did not.
Indeed the profit incentive to find new drugs is high, but the cost in previous years of that effort to discover and develop and test drugs is high, too. Companies recoup their R&D expense by using the monopoly granted by a patent. Without profit incentive to develop new drugs that would not occur. Is there a better system possible? What is that? Academics debate the utility of the patent system, but there is no convincing argument we have a better one, I wish there were on many general principles.
How do you deal with the fact there is a long list of previous successful vaccines and accepting your anti vax conspiracy theory requires ignoring proof of vaccination and its success for many diseases. It's a proven model.
The politics in public health is a problem. OTOH, President Trumps recommendation of bleach did not stop him from receiving the higher priced cures available on medical advice. Was he wrong to trust his doctors? His support for development of vaccine saved millions of lives. Neither RFKJr or any other antivax source can show an alternative response with higher success than widespread vaccination.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 24, 2023 14:52:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by nazcard on Aug 25, 2023 23:49:36 GMT -6
According to the CDC, those vaccinated previously will be more susceptible to the new COVID variant (BA.2.86):
"Current Risk Assessment Based on what CDC knows now, existing tests used to detect and medications used to treat COVID-19 appear to be effective with this variant. BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines. Scientists are evaluating the effectiveness of the forthcoming, updated COVID-19 vaccine. CDC's current assessment is that this updated vaccine will be effective at reducing severe disease and hospitalization. At this point, there is no evidence that this variant is causing more severe illness. That assessment may change as additional scientific data are developed. CDC will share more as additional scientific data are developed. CDC will share more as we know"; per CDC.GOV
So I guess this means everyone should mask-up, get in line and get that new vaccine even though it won't prevent anything, not to worry as they are probably already working on the next vaccine.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 26, 2023 6:33:55 GMT -6
It's a variant where previous infection or vaccination isn't as effective. That does not mean it has no positive effect at all, just less effect.
Masking would be a good idea to prevent infection and slow the spread. This prevents hospitals possibly being slammed and overwhelmed by rapid spread. I assume you agree it's a good idea to get more data?
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 26, 2023 10:01:48 GMT -6
Frens, as some say, there may need to be an update, or a lockdown part II thread...Links you request, no problem, and just to piss off someone, here's one from, dare I say it, yes, Alex Jones: Jones:https://www.infowars.com/posts/the-lockdowns-are-coming-back/
Which claims relied on unconfirmed and dubious sources (anonymous) to start with.
|
|
|
Post by nazcard on Aug 26, 2023 23:43:04 GMT -6
It's a variant where previous infection or vaccination isn't as effective. That does not mean it has no positive effect at all, just less effect.
Masking would be a good idea to prevent infection and slow the spread. This prevents hospitals possibly being slammed and overwhelmed by rapid spread. I assume you agree it's a good idea to get more data? The question I would have to pose to you is how confident are you with the safety and efficacy testing of these new vaccines? They seem to be developed at an unusually rapid pace. To put it in another light, I spent twenty years working in the pharmaceutical drug development industry; vaccine and drug development are not entirely dissimilar. In pharmaceutical drug development the stages are, in a simplified form: 1) proof of concept (research), 2) small animal (rodent) safety/efficacy, 3) primate (monkey) safety/efficacy, 4) intensive human clinical studies. The last molecule I was involved with was for treatment of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. The rodent studies showed unusual pathology (i.e. organ lesions); the molecule had to go back to research for modification. It came back to development and was safe from that point on; the product was eventually released for sale (following typical intense FDA scrutiny); total timeline from start to release for sale being about 8 years. The point being again, how confident are you in the safety of an "experimental vaccine" being injected into your body? How well has it been tested, have you seen or scrutinized the data, has anyone publicly scrutinized the data, what did animal models reveal? There was a real reason Pfizer wanted their clinical data held private for 75 years and it wasn't for posterity sake. And in case you're thinking I worked for some fly by night organization that had no idea what it was doing, no it was here: www.gene.com/And prior to that I was here: www.amgen.com/And by the way, I also worked for a period of time for the company founded by Kary Mullis, and who might he be: "Kary Banks Mullis (December 28, 1944 – August 7, 2019) was an American biochemist. In recognition of his role in the invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique, he shared the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Michael Smith[2] and was awarded the Japan Prize in the same year. PCR became a central technique in biochemistry and molecular biology, described by The New York Times as "highly original and significant, virtually dividing biology into the two epochs of before PCR and after PCR."[3] Mullis also downplayed humans' role in climate change". I have no high or inflated opinion of myself; I was blessed by God almighty with opportunities and used my limited ability as best I could.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 27, 2023 9:40:57 GMT -6
It's a variant where previous infection or vaccination isn't as effective. That does not mean it has no positive effect at all, just less effect.
Masking would be a good idea to prevent infection and slow the spread. This prevents hospitals possibly being slammed and overwhelmed by rapid spread. I assume you agree it's a good idea to get more data? The question I would have to pose to you is how confident are you with the safety and efficacy testing of these new vaccines? They seem to be developed at an unusually rapid pace. To put it in another light, I spent twenty years working in the pharmaceutical drug development industry; vaccine and drug development are not entirely dissimilar. In pharmaceutical drug development the stages are, in a simplified form... And in case you're thinking I worked for some fly by night organization...And by the way, I also worked for a period of time for the company founded by Kary Mullis Kary Mullis was a pioneer in PCR and very important scientist...and I am in no way saying anything about your credentials. Plus, everyone would have preferred a bit more testing of the original vaccine. But as you say it was an emergency. Plus, as you must know, even the standard series of trials and review required in routine situatins often turn out to not detect problems. That is for drug development where there may be existing proven drugs in existence, and where the new drug in the end is an expensive one which may provide improvement, but not save lives on the scale of the vaccine.
Moreover, I think regardless of your background using highly charged and misleading rhetoric to call the vaccine "experimental." The established science involved made the development anything but some wild experiment. The vaccines were based on ongoing and established science. Scientists were at work in the labs on development of the basis of a manufactured antibody for coronavirus vaccine long BEFORE, not in some wild response to COVID surfacing. And there were trials done testing the vaccine before the emergency release. IT was delayed, even at the cost of lives, to assure safety.
The risk was in fact still there that it might have been only marginally efficacious and/or had some undetected significant negative side effects in widespread use. That is true. Both of those concerns seem to have been shown to be false by the actual limited initial use.
BTW, the usual complaint of conservative economists and scientists is that FDA requires TOO MUCH testing before allowing use of a new drug. Most of the world allows use of new drugs without nearly so much expense or delay. So. As a general rule, I'd go along with your desire for more testing if it were not such an emergency and if the research on coronavirus and development of this new vaccine technology was not so advanced.
Moreover, the introduction was not wild and reckless. In featured staged release for emergency use, only for the most at risk in the population. There was voluminous data collected about efficacy and risks before release for use more broadly. The successful use not only proved efficacy but produced better evidence of its safety than any other drug being introduced in the last decade.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 27, 2023 10:04:30 GMT -6
It's a variant where previous infection or vaccination isn't as effective. That does not mean it has no positive effect at all, just less effect.
Masking would be a good idea to prevent infection and slow the spread. This prevents hospitals possibly being slammed and overwhelmed by rapid spread. I assume you agree it's a good idea to get more data? The question I would have to pose to you is how confident are you with the safety and efficacy testing of these new vaccines? They seem to be developed at an unusually rapid pace. I address the risk argument just above.
But aren't you avoiding the two issues I raised? I think your post to which I made the above response has several exaggerated and unsupported claims. Especially where you say According to the CDC, those vaccinated previously will be more susceptible to the new COVID variant (BA.2.86): " BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines....So I guess this means everyone should mask-up, get in line and get that new vaccine even though it won't prevent anything, not to worry as they are probably already working on the next vaccine. However you feel about the original emergency use of the vaccine it is now looking very safe. THIS latest post you make is bogus.
First it says nothing about masking. Second it makes the outlandish exaggeration that the new vaccine will not prevent anything.
The material you quoted above does NOT mean those not vaccinated are safer. On the contrary only that current vaccines aren't as good as they were against earlier variants. Even the old ones do some good, and this new one likely is better.
The quoted material definitely does not mean "it won't prevent anything." On the contrary what you quote actually says "CDC's current assessment is that this updated vaccine will be effective at reducing severe disease and hospitalization."
Reducing severe disease and hospitalization is preventing something significant.
Bottom line: It is appearing to be true that we are in the same stage as flu vaccines where annual vaccination to protect against new strains and boost immunity is a sound routine practice.
Your case against the original emergency authorization (discussed in the post I made above) is weak, but the case against this round of vaccination is even weaker.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 27, 2023 10:11:13 GMT -6
Discussion of the danger of the new mutations in B.A.2.86
The fact we are not testing very much for COVID may mean we will be behind the curve in response.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 15, 2023 10:51:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Sept 28, 2023 15:02:13 GMT -6
Amazing what House of Representatives Oversight Committees can dig up.
Dr. Anthony Fauci was smuggled into CIA headquarters, "without a record of entry," where he "participated in the analysis to "influence" the Agency's" Covid-19 investigation, according to the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.
This allegation is even more interesting in light of a report from two weeks ago that the CIA bribed analysts to say Covid-19 did not originate in a Chinese lab.
According to a 'senior-level' CIA whistleblower, the agency 'tried to pay off six analysts who found SARS-CoV-2 likely originated in a Wuhan lab if they changed their position and said the virus jumped from animals to humans.'
"According to the whistleblower, at the end of its review, six of the seven members of the Team believed the intelligence and science were sufficient to make a low confidence assessment that COVID-19 originated from a laboratory in Wuhan, China," reads the letter from Wenstrup.
"The seventh member of the Team, who also happened to be the most senior, was the lone officer to believe COVID-19 originated through zoonosis.
"The whistleblower further contends that to come to the eventual public determination of uncertainty, the other six members were given a significant monetary incentive to change their position," the letters continue, adding that the analysts were "experienced officers with significant scientific expertise."
What the fuck, is our CIA now running interference for the CCP! Is our CIA compromised? Or, did the CIA want to discredit anything Trump had said concerning the origins of Covid-19 and thus influence the 2020 elections, that they were willing to protect China if that was necessary?
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 29, 2023 16:38:50 GMT -6
"pay off?"
Or pay for additional research?
6 who had low confidence in an opinion which makes little difference?
Fauci goes to secret CIA meetings, does it in secret?
Facts here about the science are not entirely clear, but that's not unusual in science.
There is in fact overlap in the two theories. Easily it could be that both are partially correct.
Neither clears the Chinese lab of some negligence in spread. Neither of course proves any evil plot involving Fauci, or that his participation in meetins was wrongful in any.
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Oct 29, 2023 16:17:29 GMT -6
Another unintended consequence of the Covid-19 vaccine: Research has shown that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines reduce bacteria belonging to the Bifidobacteria genus, a common and beneficial gut bacteria. COVID vaccination is also linked to reduced gut biodiversity.Works by gastroenterologist Dr. Sabine Hazan, the CEO of ProgenaBiome, a microbiome genomic research laboratory, found that after COVID-19 vaccination, people's Bifidobacteria levels can fall by as much as 90 percent. Some of her unpublished data found that Bifidobacteria levels are negligible in vaccinated people.www.eventscribe.net/2022/ACG-Posters/fsPopup.asp?PresentationID=1132526&mode=presinfoBifidobacteria are among the first microbes to colonize a baby's gastrointestinal tract as he or she passes through the mother's birth canal. They are believed to exert positive health effects on their host. Bifidobacteria interact with the immune system, and their presence is linked with improved immunity against pathogens and cancer.The absence of Bifidobacteria microbes is linked to chronic diseases, including diabetes, cancer, and autoimmune diseases. Some studies have shown that the administration of probiotic Bifidobacteria can help improve diabetic conditions and help fight cancer.
Something to think about before getting your next Covid-19 booster.
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Apr 17, 2024 13:03:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 17, 2024 14:20:03 GMT -6
This DRASTIC group seems connected to writers of the X-Files... can't wait for the episode when aliens make a deal with Dr Fauci.
|
|