Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Second Turnback This Week Due to Unruly Pax

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
    is "modern vaccine science" any different that "modern drug science?"
    Yes.

    1) "modern vaccine science" is what I'm discussing here. I am not duscussing "modern drug science".
    2) Most of the bad outcomes from prescribed drugs are due to abuse or misuse or contradictions with other medications. Vaccines are administered in a very controlled manner.

    Now, there have been lessons learned. The 1976 Swine Flu vaccine was associated with a small but nonetheless alarming rise in Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS). Subsequent studies put the risk at about one to two case per million vaccinations. Meanwhile, the risk of GBS from influenza itself is around seventeen cases per one million infections, although a 2009 study placed the risk much higher.

    So, do the math.

    But now we have different, demonstrably safer technology at play. mRNA vaccines do not inject inactivated virus as the influenza vaccines do. mRNA inject only a lipid-encased strand of modified messenger RNA which produce only the protein structures that the immune system needs to recognize, not the virus itself. And these proteins are created within the cytoplasm of a cell. Nothing reaches the nucleus. Everything that is injected is then eliminated by natural body functions. Understanding the elegance of the technology will help overcome your fears and paranoia.

    Comment


    • TeeVee, you believe in QAnon and pizza parlor pedophiles? Little green men maybe?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
        is "modern vaccine science" any different that "modern drug science?" are all drugs proven to be safe before being unleashed on the masses of trusting people like you that have absolute faith in modern science and the decades of rigorous scientific study? really?

        let's all count the number of drugs that proved to be far less than safe and had devastating consequences, like, um, er, DEATH. and i'm not talking about a few random cases of adverse reactions. rather enough so these "safe" drugs were pulled from the market--permanently.

        we've been led to believe that the pfizer covid shot was safe and properly trialed. yet, the FDA wanted 55 years to turn over documents responsive to FOIA requests. 55 years. tell me that doesn't give you pause. tell me that doesn't at least make you wonder if the fda wasnt in bed with pfizer like the faa with boeing (think MAX). well shit, it makes me wonder.
        It’s probably safe…but yeah, choose your example, there’s LONG lists of science being wrong.

        Almost every day there are extremely compelling data collected that are consistent with the hypothesis that the sun orbits around Earth.

        Did I need to tell you that the Ag Chem industry often helps EPA with registrations?…it’s a win-win, you know…we don’t want to be killing our own customers.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

          What was the justification? (I suppose you need a justification to ask for a 55-years period of non-disclosure to FOIA requests)
          they claim they could only process 500 pages per day due to under-staffing. "The FDA has not disputed that the data should be made available to the public. However, the regulatory agency has claimed that each page of the file must be closely reviewed in order to redact confidential details or trade secrets that could be exposed." (https://www.biospace.com/article/non...authorization/).

          I understand property rights and trade secrets, but I'm also sure that pfizer itself could've sanitized that stuff from its own docs faster if it wanted to be transparent. of course pfizer is not subject to foia requests and aside from being a good citizen, has no obligation to disclose this stuff.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Evan View Post

            Yes.

            1) "modern vaccine science" is what I'm discussing here. I am not duscussing "modern drug science".
            2) Most of the bad outcomes from prescribed drugs are due to abuse or misuse or contradictions with other medications. Vaccines are administered in a very controlled manner.

            Now, there have been lessons learned. The 1976 Swine Flu vaccine was associated with a small but nonetheless alarming rise in Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS). Subsequent studies put the risk at about one to two case per million vaccinations. Meanwhile, the risk of GBS from influenza itself is around seventeen cases per one million infections, although a 2009 study placed the risk much higher.

            So, do the math.

            But now we have different, demonstrably safer technology at play. mRNA vaccines do not inject inactivated virus as the influenza vaccines do. mRNA inject only a lipid-encased strand of modified messenger RNA which produce only the protein structures that the immune system needs to recognize, not the virus itself. And these proteins are created within the cytoplasm of a cell. Nothing reaches the nucleus. Everything that is injected is then eliminated by natural body functions. Understanding the elegance of the technology will help overcome your fears and paranoia.
            i knew you would say that drugs are not the same. it is your way of defending your position. and of course it is wrong. both require 3 levels of trials and neither should be rushed.

            and you are DEAD WRONG on your ass-ertion about misue and contraindication being the cause of bad outcomes. DEAD WRONG.

            how about so called "anti-depressants" that have been proven to cause suicidal ideations in people that weren't suicidal before taking the drug? or antihistamines that cause heart damage. or diet pills that cause heart damage. eh, it's ok, cuz SCIENCE, and we know that SCIENCE never puts money before safety. E-V-E-R.

            i have NO fears or paranoia. i simply doubt things and do not just say, "ok, the WSJ reported it so it must be right." you spend an inordinate amount of time reading web based stuff and apparently believe most of it. ever stop to think how much money was on the line for these shots? the orange monkey promised pfizer alone an initial purchase of nearly 6 BILLION dollars of their shot--BEFORE IT WAS EVEN APPROVED. no way they may have cut a corner or two to get that payday, eh?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 3WE View Post

              It’s probably safe…but yeah, choose your example, there’s LONG lists of science being wrong.

              Almost every day there are extremely compelling data collected that are consistent with the hypothesis that the sun orbits around Earth.

              Did I need to tell you that the Ag Chem industry often helps EPA with registrations?…it’s a win-win, you know…we don’t want to be killing our own customers.
              let's keep the data straight though. i dont doubt the solar orbit or the lunar orbit for that matter. i dont doubt the earth is somewhat round. but their have been altogether too many instances where industries and govts flat out LIED or intentionally omitted very pertinent info for profit at the expense of human life. two words: agent orange.

              it's kinda hard to regain or maintain trust in industries and govt agencies that have done this for decades.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                TeeVee, you believe in QAnon and pizza parlor pedophiles? Little green men maybe?
                One could turn this around to say “Thou shalt not ask questions”. Is that what you believe?
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                  how about so called "anti-depressants" that have been proven to cause suicidal ideations in people that weren't suicidal before taking the drug?
                  You're a lawyer, right? You must be at least vaguely familiar with the definition of proof. There is anecdotal evidence to support that claim but medical science doesn't even know what depression is, or, for that matter, how antidepressants affect it. There are pharmalogical strategies and empirical results that guide research, but nothing is proven, counselor.

                  mRNA science, on the other hand, is proven science.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Evan View Post

                    mRNA science, on the other hand, is proven science.
                    Indeed, all that stuff with the J&J vaccine...just anecdotal.

                    Three Dog Night.
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post

                      let's keep the data straight though. i dont doubt the solar orbit or the lunar orbit for that matter. i dont doubt the earth is somewhat round. but their have been altogether too many instances where industries and govts flat out LIED or intentionally omitted very pertinent info for profit at the expense of human life. two words: agent orange.

                      it's kinda hard to regain or maintain trust in industries and govt agencies that have done this for decades.
                      You're being brash...

                      There's lots of people TRYING to do what's right. The regulatory agencies are not crooked and worthless.

                      BUT... there ARE examples...and that's what Evan's mind-in-a-bubble can't comprehend.

                      He can't reconcile that the FAA may have let MCAS go through (Even though Gabe thinks it's a bad design, But Boeing and SWA wanted it sooner, not later) or that the FDA, under immense pressure from a highly contagious, old-person-killing virus might have rushed vaccines.

                      AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, MONEY WAS AT STAKE IN THESES CASES

                      It's also interesting to ponder that the people who get A grades in molecular biology often end up at the big company, making big $, while the C people get low-paying jobs at under-funded governagencies where there's limited time to review registration packages. When the company offers to help, the regulators can certainly use the help.

                      PS: No one is saying there's vast conspiracies, just that there are sometimes influences, and stuff happens, like relentless nose down trim that jams from mechanical pressure.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • I was going to comment that, at least in principle, the rushing of the COVID vaccines was not not improvised. A process already established long time ago, called approval for emergency use, was used.

                        In statistics (and hence in medical trials), the point where you can prove a point with a given confidence level is dependent on the sample size. Working with a smaller sample gives you either less confidence in the strong result or the same confidence in a less strong result.

                        For example, your standard may be to establish, with a 99.9% confidence level, that the medical treatment doesn't kill more than 1 individual per million. In an approval for emergency use, you may end up being 99% confident that it doesn't kill 1 per million and 99,9% confident that it doesn't kill more than 10 per million, so you assume a limited higher risk and for a limited time, which is a reasonable risk when you have people getting badly sick and dead by the millions and the vaccine can reduce that number 10 folds.

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                          Indeed, all that stuff with the J&J vaccine...just anecdotal.
                          All that stuff with the J&J vaccine: not mRNA.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Evan View Post

                            All that stuff with the J&J vaccine: not mRNA.
                            Well, that changes everything.

                            Three Dog Night.

                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Evan View Post

                              You're a lawyer, right? You must be at least vaguely familiar with the definition of proof. There is anecdotal evidence to support that claim but medical science doesn't even know what depression is, or, for that matter, how antidepressants affect it. There are pharmalogical strategies and empirical results that guide research, but nothing is proven, counselor.

                              mRNA science, on the other hand, is proven science.
                              i am. and i'll admit that "proof" in the legal sense is often circumstantial and kind of scary. one example: one can be convicted of murder with no weapon and even with no dead body.

                              what constitutes "anecdotal?" 20 cases? 200 cases? to what degree is anecdotal acceptable to you? eh, we will lessen your feeling depressed, but 1/100 of you will kill yourself because of our drug. fair enough for you, evan?

                              i've been watching videos by this doctor that promotes veganism. i'm NOT a vegan. he reviews published studies done by supposedly well-credentialed people. peer-reviewed studies. he then breaks down the studies and shows conclusively how they were poorly constructed, left out pertinent facts, and insidiously compared apples to orangutans. stuff most people miss. even professionals and certainly internet sleuths such as you.

                              i know you are desperate to believe that big pharma is honest and cares only about curing humanity of its ills and preventing death. do yourself and others that may turn to you for information thinking that you are a well-informed guy a favor. dont forget that big pharma is NOT in business to save lives and cure illnesses. it is in business to make money. EVERYTHING else is secondary. kinda like boeing is not in business to make safe airplanes...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                                i know you are desperate to believe that big pharma is honest and cares only about curing humanity of its ills and preventing death. do yourself and others that may turn to you for information thinking that you are a well-informed guy a favor. dont forget that big pharma is NOT in business to save lives and cure illnesses. it is in business to make money. EVERYTHING else is secondary. kinda like boeing is not in business to make safe airplanes...
                                And yet, big pharma is not a lesser part of the reason why a lot of serious diseases are now eradicated, preventable, curable or at least treatable and life expectancy increased a lot, and Boeing airplanes are still extremely safe (with the notable criminal exception of the early MAX, now fixed): the 737 NG family has EXACTLY the same hull loss rate and fatal hull loss rate than the Airbus A320 family, at 0.19 and 0.09 events every million departures.

                                So yeah, all for-profit organizations are in the business of making money, but the system somehow still works.

                                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X