Vaccine Redux - Vax up and go to Class

117,483 Views | 2424 Replies | Last: 14 hrs ago by Unit2Sucks
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CDC reporting that unvaccinated are 13x more likely to get infected and 68x more likely to die. And yet thousands of people continue to commit suicide every day because they believe in misinformation.


oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

CDC reporting that unvaccinated are 13x more likely to get infected and 68x more likely to die. And yet thousands of people continue to commit suicide every day because they believe in misinformation.





If this is true, why is Israel recommending and authorizing a fourth shot for their healthy population? It is because the boosters also wane.

I am going to fact check the CDC here. Their statement is likely true but definitely misleading. This 13 fold protection only lasts a couple of months.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

CDC reporting that unvaccinated are 13x more likely to get infected and 68x more likely to die. And yet thousands of people continue to commit suicide every day because they believe in misinformation.





If this is true, why is Israel recommending and authorizing a fourth shot for their healthy population? It is because the boosters also wane.

I am going to fact check the CDC here. Their statement is likely true but definitely misleading. This 13 fold protection only lasts a couple of months.
I don't think it's misleading. It's speaking to what is happening right now. Pretending, as you are, that the salient point is long-term durability is misleading. I understand that your agenda demands you take this approach but it's even weaker than your myocarditis fixation.

The vaccines are saving thousands of lives per day right now - perhaps much more. That's what the CDC data speaks to. Your response is that we might need to get another shot if another bad wave hits in a few months? OK, well in that case the unvaccinated will still die at alarmingly high rates and people can choose whether to get additional boosters or not.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

CDC reporting that unvaccinated are 13x more likely to get infected and 68x more likely to die. And yet thousands of people continue to commit suicide every day because they believe in misinformation.





If this is true, why is Israel recommending and authorizing a fourth shot for their healthy population? It is because the boosters also wane.

I am going to fact check the CDC here. Their statement is likely true but definitely misleading. This 13 fold protection only lasts a couple of months.
I don't think it's misleading. It's speaking to what is happening right now. Pretending, as you are, that the salient point is long-term durability is misleading. I understand that your agenda demands you take this approach but it's even weaker than your myocarditis fixation.

The vaccines are saving thousands of lives per day right now - perhaps much more. That's what the CDC data speaks to. Your response is that we might need to get another shot if another bad wave hits in a few months? OK, well in that case the unvaccinated will still die at alarmingly high rates and people can choose whether to get additional boosters or not.

When boosted people start getting covid at alarming rates, everyone will start to wonder why and then eventually it will be obvious that the antibodies that prevent infection wane after a few months.

Covid 19 is a coronavirus. They are designed to mutate. Both Pfizer and Moderna code for partial spike protein. Other vaccines code for the full length spike protein. They provide better protection against mutations. Certainly, flooding the body with partial spike antibodies provides better protection against infection for 60 days than not doing so.

With that being said, the vulnerable should definitely get boosted and, because of the lack of durability of current vaccines, do this as often as necessary until the virus is far less prevalent or mutates to be less dangerous than omicron.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

CDC reporting that unvaccinated are 13x more likely to get infected and 68x more likely to die. And yet thousands of people continue to commit suicide every day because they believe in misinformation.




How many in the vaccinated and boosted categories previously had Covid?
How many in the unvaccinated category were children and young adults?
How many in the unvaccinated category were people suffering from multiple comorbidities?
Have the number of deaths due to Covid vs deaths with Covid been separated out from this data?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

CDC reporting that unvaccinated are 13x more likely to get infected and 68x more likely to die. And yet thousands of people continue to commit suicide every day because they believe in misinformation.




How many in the vaccinated and boosted categories previously had Covid?
How many in the unvaccinated category were children and young adults?
How many in the unvaccinated category were people suffering from multiple comorbidities?
Have the number of deaths due to Covid vs deaths with Covid been separated out from this data?


While hospitalization data often is mixed (bc of covid or happened to test positive), cause of death is determined by the coroner. It should generally be accurate.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

BearForce2 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

CDC reporting that unvaccinated are 13x more likely to get infected and 68x more likely to die. And yet thousands of people continue to commit suicide every day because they believe in misinformation.




How many in the vaccinated and boosted categories previously had Covid?
How many in the unvaccinated category were children and young adults?
How many in the unvaccinated category were people suffering from multiple comorbidities?
Have the number of deaths due to Covid vs deaths with Covid been separated out from this data?


While hospitalization data often is mixed (bc of covid or happened to test positive), cause of death is determined by the coroner. It should generally be accurate.

I thought doctors make the final determination if someone dies in a healthcare facility and fills out the certificate. Coroners make that determination in other instances including deaths that are unexpected or occur at home.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:

oski003 said:

BearForce2 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

CDC reporting that unvaccinated are 13x more likely to get infected and 68x more likely to die. And yet thousands of people continue to commit suicide every day because they believe in misinformation.




How many in the vaccinated and boosted categories previously had Covid?
How many in the unvaccinated category were children and young adults?
How many in the unvaccinated category were people suffering from multiple comorbidities?
Have the number of deaths due to Covid vs deaths with Covid been separated out from this data?


While hospitalization data often is mixed (bc of covid or happened to test positive), cause of death is determined by the coroner. It should generally be accurate.

I thought doctors make the final determination if someone dies in a healthcare facility and fills out the certificate. Coroners make that determination in other instances including deaths that are unexpected or occur at home.


The point is they make a determination of the actual cause of death. The cause of death figures are much more accurate than the hospitalization figures.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?


Death
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?


Death


Your agenda must then be ignorance and lack of reading comprehension.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?


Death

Isn't the death of Trump supporters what you want? Or was that U2sucks? I know bearister is in favor of it.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.


So, you don't think my agenda is death? Lol.

Someone can absolutely criticize mRNA vaccines and not be against vaccines. There were and continue to be so many falsehoods given to the American people to ensure mRNA vaccine uptake. The reason: because they are the best tool AVAILABLE to prevent death. I have invested in Novavax, Inovio, BioNTech, and Moderna. I bought all of them when they were much lower value than they are now (except Inovio).

I don't invest much now (largely mutual funds), but I certainly saw how the game is played. This is where I express my disgust with the business side of covid 19. The US gave Pfizer 2 billion yesterday to buy and donate vaccines for lower income countries. Why are we paying a king's ransom for Pfizer doses when they expire quickly and are incredibly difficult to distribute? Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.

OWS kicked Novavax out of Emergent Bio so they could focus on JnJ and Astra Zeneca. Novavax is indeed having trouble manufacturing in their OWS partnered FUJI facility as Fuji lacks experience and Novavax does as well.
The UK also asked Novavax to manufacture stateside at their Fuji plant. Same issues. Novavax partnered with Serum II and their delays have been caused by Biden's export ban and executive order to divert vaccine supplies contracted to Serum to Pfizer and JnJ. Astra Zeneca and Novavax were to split production. Astra got Biden to release supplies for Astra. Serum pivoted to all Astra. Later, Biden exported Novavax's supplies. This delayed the crap out of them. All of this frustrates me because the manufacturing delays are the reasons for Novavax's slow approvals. They have been approved, however, in 150 countries. Only the US, UK, NZ, Japan, and Canada have yet to approve. Despite taking on Serum as a late partner and being blocked by the US, Serum is distributing 100 million doses in the next three weeks. Obviously, zero doses of Novavax vaccine will be going to the USA.

Anyway, my 5 year old did get a Pfizer shot. I will get a booster by the end of February because I do not believe the protection against severe illness lasts forever. I hope the booster will not be mRNA. If it has to be, I will choose Pfizer because it is a smaller dose. I felt crappy when I exercised two months post second shot Moderna.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
my first Pfizer: kind of sore shoulder, nothing else
my second Pfizer: less of a sore shoulder, maybe the tiniest bit of feeling feverish (maybe not)

Moderna booster: pretty bad sore shoulder, nothing else

I don't see myself getting another booster for a fairly long while, as things stand now. Hoping we can declare this to be "endemic" around March 1st, or not long after!
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

my first Pfizer: kind of sore shoulder, nothing else
my second Pfizer: less of a sore shoulder, maybe the tiniest bit of feeling feverish (maybe not)

Moderna booster: pretty bad sore shoulder, nothing else

I don't see myself getting another booster for a fairly long while, as things stand now. Hoping we can declare this to be "endemic" around March 1st, or not long after!


I got very sick about 8 hours after my second dose and felt very sick (bad flu) for about 12 hours. I felt better by the end of the following day. I have never had issues with a flu vaccine.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Stop pretending you care about any of this.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.


Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.


Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are good band-aids. As I have posted multiple times, I keep my discussions here. I am certainly not going to go cheer at an RFK rally. I generally am more supportive of your stance in other channels where people are less pro-mrna or pro-covid vaccine. I believe it is absolutely wrong to force Americans to only have a genetic vaccine choice when actual traditional vaccines are available throughout the world. I do not believe the mrna vaccines meet the safety requirements that vaccines typically require, and I believe forcing them as the only option has created more distrust of our public health officials. They made sense during the first wave and even delta, but the pendulum has shifted whereas the cost benefit analysis simply doesn't work for healthy people. Of course, the government's narrative shifts so that, no matter what happens, the solution is more mrna. Pfizer reports what appears to be a stellar immune booster response 2 weeks post booster and the media eats it up. The problem is that these antibodies disappear rapidly, very rapidly. Yet, the comparisons are made to other vaccines or situations on varying timelines, and nobody in the mainstream media questions it. So, if you are going to force college students (and other scenarios) to get boosted, offer something else.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.


Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
They have 18 lobbying firms working for them in Washington DC. 83 lobbyists are named. I don't know what they have internationally.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.


Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
They have 18 lobbying firms working for them in Washington DC. 83 lobbyists are named. I don't know what they have internationally.
What vaccine developers have fewer than 83 employees?

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.

What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.

Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are good band-aids. As I have posted multiple times, I keep my discussions here. I am certainly not going to go cheer at an RFK rally. I generally am more supportive of your stance in other channels where people are less pro-mrna or pro-covid vaccine. I believe it is absolutely wrong to force Americans to only have a genetic vaccine choice when actual traditional vaccines are available throughout the world. I do not believe the mrna vaccines meet the safety requirements that vaccines typically require, and I believe forcing them as the only option has created more distrust of our public health officials. They made sense during the first wave and even delta, but the pendulum has shifted whereas the cost benefit analysis simply doesn't work for healthy people. Of course, the government's narrative shifts so that, no matter what happens, the solution is more mrna. Pfizer reports what appears to be a stellar immune booster response 2 weeks post booster and the media eats it up. The problem is that these antibodies disappear rapidly, very rapidly. Yet, the comparisons are made to other vaccines or situations on varying timelines, and nobody in the mainstream media questions it. So, if you are going to force college students (and other scenarios) to get boosted, offer something else.

You've been aggressively anti-mRNA since long before Omicron. You seem to be both holding Pfizer/Moderna to different standards than you would hold other vaccines and you are resolving all ambiguities in favor of other unproven vaccines. There are a number of other vaccines being used throughout the world and none have yet proven themselves to be better than Pfizer on any of the criteria that you have identified. Everyone wants something better than we have, but wanting doesn't count for anything. I hope the Hotez vaccine proves to be safer and more effective than Pfizer and that it could really help vaccinate the world. That hope doesn't change the reality we currently live in. Sinovac is a traditional vaccine but have proven far less effective than mRNA. The AZ vaccine has its own problems.

I hope that once we get some real world experience with Novavax/Inovio we find that they are better in every way than the choices we have available. If you think offering these comparatively untested and experimental vaccines to people on an EUA basis will somehow make it through the anti-vaxxer defenses, you haven't been paying attention.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.


Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
They have 18 lobbying firms working for them in Washington DC. 83 lobbyists are named. I don't know what they have internationally.
What vaccine developers have fewer than 83 employees?

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.

What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.

Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are good band-aids. As I have posted multiple times, I keep my discussions here. I am certainly not going to go cheer at an RFK rally. I generally am more supportive of your stance in other channels where people are less pro-mrna or pro-covid vaccine. I believe it is absolutely wrong to force Americans to only have a genetic vaccine choice when actual traditional vaccines are available throughout the world. I do not believe the mrna vaccines meet the safety requirements that vaccines typically require, and I believe forcing them as the only option has created more distrust of our public health officials. They made sense during the first wave and even delta, but the pendulum has shifted whereas the cost benefit analysis simply doesn't work for healthy people. Of course, the government's narrative shifts so that, no matter what happens, the solution is more mrna. Pfizer reports what appears to be a stellar immune booster response 2 weeks post booster and the media eats it up. The problem is that these antibodies disappear rapidly, very rapidly. Yet, the comparisons are made to other vaccines or situations on varying timelines, and nobody in the mainstream media questions it. So, if you are going to force college students (and other scenarios) to get boosted, offer something else.

You've been aggressively anti-mRNA since long before Omicron. You seem to be both holding Pfizer/Moderna to different standards than you would hold other vaccines and you are resolving all ambiguities in favor of other unproven vaccines. There are a number of other vaccines being used throughout the world and none have yet proven themselves to be better than Pfizer on any of the criteria that you have identified. Everyone wants something better than we have, but wanting doesn't count for anything. I hope the Hotez vaccine proves to be safer and more effective than Pfizer and that it could really help vaccinate the world. That hope doesn't change the reality we currently live in. Sinovac is a traditional vaccine but have proven far less effective than mRNA. The AZ vaccine has its own problems.

I hope that once we get some real world experience with Novavax/Inovio we find that they are better in every way than the choices we have available. If you think offering these comparatively untested and experimental vaccines to people on an EUA basis will somehow make it through the anti-vaxxer defenses, you haven't been paying attention.


You certainly have a lot of nice opinions and rhetoric. I am not a big fan of Astra or Sinovac, but they certainly do work. I became more vocal when the CDC pushed to vaccinate young kids with pfizer almost two years post EUA of Pfizer and still no alternatives to mRNA/adeno were available in the USA to even adults. Yes, other vaccines are better than Pfizer on a ton of criteria. Safety. Check. Ease of distribution. Check. Storage. Check. Cost. Check. The only thing Pfizer has is efficiency during the first 60 days. I certainly hope that the USA will approve Novavax now that almost all of the other countries in the world have. Vaxart has less than 83 employees. Inovio did when the pandemic started. I am pretty sure Inovio would have been approved by now if they waived patent rights and partnered with Big Pharma. For now, I don't expect approval in the USA, so I am focused on Novavax. The WHO is supporting smaller developers like Inovio Novavax Curevac Medigen etc... It frustrates me that there is now suddenly a huge push once again in government to defund the WHO. The USA is choosing to buy and donate Pfizer directly than help the WHO support alternative platforms.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.


Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
They have 18 lobbying firms working for them in Washington DC. 83 lobbyists are named. I don't know what they have internationally.
What vaccine developers have fewer than 83 employees?

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.

What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.

Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are good band-aids. As I have posted multiple times, I keep my discussions here. I am certainly not going to go cheer at an RFK rally. I generally am more supportive of your stance in other channels where people are less pro-mrna or pro-covid vaccine. I believe it is absolutely wrong to force Americans to only have a genetic vaccine choice when actual traditional vaccines are available throughout the world. I do not believe the mrna vaccines meet the safety requirements that vaccines typically require, and I believe forcing them as the only option has created more distrust of our public health officials. They made sense during the first wave and even delta, but the pendulum has shifted whereas the cost benefit analysis simply doesn't work for healthy people. Of course, the government's narrative shifts so that, no matter what happens, the solution is more mrna. Pfizer reports what appears to be a stellar immune booster response 2 weeks post booster and the media eats it up. The problem is that these antibodies disappear rapidly, very rapidly. Yet, the comparisons are made to other vaccines or situations on varying timelines, and nobody in the mainstream media questions it. So, if you are going to force college students (and other scenarios) to get boosted, offer something else.

You've been aggressively anti-mRNA since long before Omicron. You seem to be both holding Pfizer/Moderna to different standards than you would hold other vaccines and you are resolving all ambiguities in favor of other unproven vaccines. There are a number of other vaccines being used throughout the world and none have yet proven themselves to be better than Pfizer on any of the criteria that you have identified. Everyone wants something better than we have, but wanting doesn't count for anything. I hope the Hotez vaccine proves to be safer and more effective than Pfizer and that it could really help vaccinate the world. That hope doesn't change the reality we currently live in. Sinovac is a traditional vaccine but have proven far less effective than mRNA. The AZ vaccine has its own problems.

I hope that once we get some real world experience with Novavax/Inovio we find that they are better in every way than the choices we have available. If you think offering these comparatively untested and experimental vaccines to people on an EUA basis will somehow make it through the anti-vaxxer defenses, you haven't been paying attention.


I became more vocal when the CDC pushed to vaccinate young kids with pfizer almost two years post EUA of Pfizer and still no alternatives to mRNA/adeno were available in the USA to even adults.
Oh come off it, do we need to go back in the thread to find where your anti-mRNA rhetoric started? Here's one from May. I'm sure there are others.

You've been complaining about myocarditis since long before the FDA approved kids. And myocarditis doesn't appear to be a concern for 5-11 anyway (or anyone other than males between 15-25). I trust that by now if myocarditis was a concern for kids under 11 it's all you would be talking about.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.


Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
They have 18 lobbying firms working for them in Washington DC. 83 lobbyists are named. I don't know what they have internationally.
What vaccine developers have fewer than 83 employees?

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.

What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.

Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are good band-aids. As I have posted multiple times, I keep my discussions here. I am certainly not going to go cheer at an RFK rally. I generally am more supportive of your stance in other channels where people are less pro-mrna or pro-covid vaccine. I believe it is absolutely wrong to force Americans to only have a genetic vaccine choice when actual traditional vaccines are available throughout the world. I do not believe the mrna vaccines meet the safety requirements that vaccines typically require, and I believe forcing them as the only option has created more distrust of our public health officials. They made sense during the first wave and even delta, but the pendulum has shifted whereas the cost benefit analysis simply doesn't work for healthy people. Of course, the government's narrative shifts so that, no matter what happens, the solution is more mrna. Pfizer reports what appears to be a stellar immune booster response 2 weeks post booster and the media eats it up. The problem is that these antibodies disappear rapidly, very rapidly. Yet, the comparisons are made to other vaccines or situations on varying timelines, and nobody in the mainstream media questions it. So, if you are going to force college students (and other scenarios) to get boosted, offer something else.

You've been aggressively anti-mRNA since long before Omicron. You seem to be both holding Pfizer/Moderna to different standards than you would hold other vaccines and you are resolving all ambiguities in favor of other unproven vaccines. There are a number of other vaccines being used throughout the world and none have yet proven themselves to be better than Pfizer on any of the criteria that you have identified. Everyone wants something better than we have, but wanting doesn't count for anything. I hope the Hotez vaccine proves to be safer and more effective than Pfizer and that it could really help vaccinate the world. That hope doesn't change the reality we currently live in. Sinovac is a traditional vaccine but have proven far less effective than mRNA. The AZ vaccine has its own problems.

I hope that once we get some real world experience with Novavax/Inovio we find that they are better in every way than the choices we have available. If you think offering these comparatively untested and experimental vaccines to people on an EUA basis will somehow make it through the anti-vaxxer defenses, you haven't been paying attention.


I became more vocal when the CDC pushed to vaccinate young kids with pfizer almost two years post EUA of Pfizer and still no alternatives to mRNA/adeno were available in the USA to even adults.
Oh come off it, do we need to go back in the thread to find where your anti-mRNA rhetoric started? Here's one from May. I'm sure there are others.

You've been complaining about myocarditis since long before the FDA approved kids. And myocarditis doesn't appear to be a concern for 5-11 anyway (or anyone other than males between 15-25). I trust that by now if myocarditis was a concern for kids under 11 it's all you would be talking about.


Do you know what I became more vocal means? Myocarditis is a concern for kids. Thanks.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.


Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
They have 18 lobbying firms working for them in Washington DC. 83 lobbyists are named. I don't know what they have internationally.
What vaccine developers have fewer than 83 employees?

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.

What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.

Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are good band-aids. As I have posted multiple times, I keep my discussions here. I am certainly not going to go cheer at an RFK rally. I generally am more supportive of your stance in other channels where people are less pro-mrna or pro-covid vaccine. I believe it is absolutely wrong to force Americans to only have a genetic vaccine choice when actual traditional vaccines are available throughout the world. I do not believe the mrna vaccines meet the safety requirements that vaccines typically require, and I believe forcing them as the only option has created more distrust of our public health officials. They made sense during the first wave and even delta, but the pendulum has shifted whereas the cost benefit analysis simply doesn't work for healthy people. Of course, the government's narrative shifts so that, no matter what happens, the solution is more mrna. Pfizer reports what appears to be a stellar immune booster response 2 weeks post booster and the media eats it up. The problem is that these antibodies disappear rapidly, very rapidly. Yet, the comparisons are made to other vaccines or situations on varying timelines, and nobody in the mainstream media questions it. So, if you are going to force college students (and other scenarios) to get boosted, offer something else.

You've been aggressively anti-mRNA since long before Omicron. You seem to be both holding Pfizer/Moderna to different standards than you would hold other vaccines and you are resolving all ambiguities in favor of other unproven vaccines. There are a number of other vaccines being used throughout the world and none have yet proven themselves to be better than Pfizer on any of the criteria that you have identified. Everyone wants something better than we have, but wanting doesn't count for anything. I hope the Hotez vaccine proves to be safer and more effective than Pfizer and that it could really help vaccinate the world. That hope doesn't change the reality we currently live in. Sinovac is a traditional vaccine but have proven far less effective than mRNA. The AZ vaccine has its own problems.

I hope that once we get some real world experience with Novavax/Inovio we find that they are better in every way than the choices we have available. If you think offering these comparatively untested and experimental vaccines to people on an EUA basis will somehow make it through the anti-vaxxer defenses, you haven't been paying attention.


I became more vocal when the CDC pushed to vaccinate young kids with pfizer almost two years post EUA of Pfizer and still no alternatives to mRNA/adeno were available in the USA to even adults.
Oh come off it, do we need to go back in the thread to find where your anti-mRNA rhetoric started? Here's one from May. I'm sure there are others.

You've been complaining about myocarditis since long before the FDA approved kids. And myocarditis doesn't appear to be a concern for 5-11 anyway (or anyone other than males between 15-25). I trust that by now if myocarditis was a concern for kids under 11 it's all you would be talking about.


Do you know what I became more vocal means? Myocarditis is a concern for kids. Thanks.
There have been something like 1 case of myocarditis per million doses in 5-11 year olds. It's a background risk.

If you want to get technical about semantics, you can pretend that your threshold for vocal hasn't been met yet. From the perspective of people in this thread, you've been vocal for a long time.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.


Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
They have 18 lobbying firms working for them in Washington DC. 83 lobbyists are named. I don't know what they have internationally.
What vaccine developers have fewer than 83 employees?

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.

What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.

Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are good band-aids. As I have posted multiple times, I keep my discussions here. I am certainly not going to go cheer at an RFK rally. I generally am more supportive of your stance in other channels where people are less pro-mrna or pro-covid vaccine. I believe it is absolutely wrong to force Americans to only have a genetic vaccine choice when actual traditional vaccines are available throughout the world. I do not believe the mrna vaccines meet the safety requirements that vaccines typically require, and I believe forcing them as the only option has created more distrust of our public health officials. They made sense during the first wave and even delta, but the pendulum has shifted whereas the cost benefit analysis simply doesn't work for healthy people. Of course, the government's narrative shifts so that, no matter what happens, the solution is more mrna. Pfizer reports what appears to be a stellar immune booster response 2 weeks post booster and the media eats it up. The problem is that these antibodies disappear rapidly, very rapidly. Yet, the comparisons are made to other vaccines or situations on varying timelines, and nobody in the mainstream media questions it. So, if you are going to force college students (and other scenarios) to get boosted, offer something else.

You've been aggressively anti-mRNA since long before Omicron. You seem to be both holding Pfizer/Moderna to different standards than you would hold other vaccines and you are resolving all ambiguities in favor of other unproven vaccines. There are a number of other vaccines being used throughout the world and none have yet proven themselves to be better than Pfizer on any of the criteria that you have identified. Everyone wants something better than we have, but wanting doesn't count for anything. I hope the Hotez vaccine proves to be safer and more effective than Pfizer and that it could really help vaccinate the world. That hope doesn't change the reality we currently live in. Sinovac is a traditional vaccine but have proven far less effective than mRNA. The AZ vaccine has its own problems.

I hope that once we get some real world experience with Novavax/Inovio we find that they are better in every way than the choices we have available. If you think offering these comparatively untested and experimental vaccines to people on an EUA basis will somehow make it through the anti-vaxxer defenses, you haven't been paying attention.


I became more vocal when the CDC pushed to vaccinate young kids with pfizer almost two years post EUA of Pfizer and still no alternatives to mRNA/adeno were available in the USA to even adults.
Oh come off it, do we need to go back in the thread to find where your anti-mRNA rhetoric started? Here's one from May. I'm sure there are others.

You've been complaining about myocarditis since long before the FDA approved kids. And myocarditis doesn't appear to be a concern for 5-11 anyway (or anyone other than males between 15-25). I trust that by now if myocarditis was a concern for kids under 11 it's all you would be talking about.


Do you know what I became more vocal means? Myocarditis is a concern for kids. Thanks.
There have been something like 1 case of myocarditis per million doses in 5-11 year olds. It's a background risk.

If you want to get technical about semantics, you can pretend that your threshold for vocal hasn't been met yet. From the perspective of people in this thread, you've been vocal for a long time.


The CDC reported 8 cases out of 2 million second doses age 5-11.

I am grateful that they lowered the dose in this age range but very skeptical of the durabily / cost benefit analysis of it. Hopefully, they won't be boosting kids to try to prevent infection, because it doesn't work.

Healthy 18-30 year olds are the main myocarditis population. I also think it is common sense that covid 19 can cause myocarditis in a post vaccination infection. For some reason, you argued vehemently against it.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Multi tasking and commercials. I'm working both forums.

You're a LEGEND!

You're definitely Living the Dream at age 70.

What could be more rewarding than spending your Golden Years in OT land?

Lmfao.


Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.


Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
They have 18 lobbying firms working for them in Washington DC. 83 lobbyists are named. I don't know what they have internationally.
What vaccine developers have fewer than 83 employees?

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.

What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.

Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are good band-aids. As I have posted multiple times, I keep my discussions here. I am certainly not going to go cheer at an RFK rally. I generally am more supportive of your stance in other channels where people are less pro-mrna or pro-covid vaccine. I believe it is absolutely wrong to force Americans to only have a genetic vaccine choice when actual traditional vaccines are available throughout the world. I do not believe the mrna vaccines meet the safety requirements that vaccines typically require, and I believe forcing them as the only option has created more distrust of our public health officials. They made sense during the first wave and even delta, but the pendulum has shifted whereas the cost benefit analysis simply doesn't work for healthy people. Of course, the government's narrative shifts so that, no matter what happens, the solution is more mrna. Pfizer reports what appears to be a stellar immune booster response 2 weeks post booster and the media eats it up. The problem is that these antibodies disappear rapidly, very rapidly. Yet, the comparisons are made to other vaccines or situations on varying timelines, and nobody in the mainstream media questions it. So, if you are going to force college students (and other scenarios) to get boosted, offer something else.

You've been aggressively anti-mRNA since long before Omicron. You seem to be both holding Pfizer/Moderna to different standards than you would hold other vaccines and you are resolving all ambiguities in favor of other unproven vaccines. There are a number of other vaccines being used throughout the world and none have yet proven themselves to be better than Pfizer on any of the criteria that you have identified. Everyone wants something better than we have, but wanting doesn't count for anything. I hope the Hotez vaccine proves to be safer and more effective than Pfizer and that it could really help vaccinate the world. That hope doesn't change the reality we currently live in. Sinovac is a traditional vaccine but have proven far less effective than mRNA. The AZ vaccine has its own problems.

I hope that once we get some real world experience with Novavax/Inovio we find that they are better in every way than the choices we have available. If you think offering these comparatively untested and experimental vaccines to people on an EUA basis will somehow make it through the anti-vaxxer defenses, you haven't been paying attention.


I became more vocal when the CDC pushed to vaccinate young kids with pfizer almost two years post EUA of Pfizer and still no alternatives to mRNA/adeno were available in the USA to even adults.
Oh come off it, do we need to go back in the thread to find where your anti-mRNA rhetoric started? Here's one from May. I'm sure there are others.

You've been complaining about myocarditis since long before the FDA approved kids. And myocarditis doesn't appear to be a concern for 5-11 anyway (or anyone other than males between 15-25). I trust that by now if myocarditis was a concern for kids under 11 it's all you would be talking about.


Do you know what I became more vocal means? Myocarditis is a concern for kids. Thanks.
There have been something like 1 case of myocarditis per million doses in 5-11 year olds. It's a background risk.

If you want to get technical about semantics, you can pretend that your threshold for vocal hasn't been met yet. From the perspective of people in this thread, you've been vocal for a long time.


The CDC reported 8 cases out of 2 million second doses age 5-11.

I am grateful that they lowered the dose in this age range but very skeptical of the durabily / cost benefit analysis of it. Hopefully, they won't be boosting kids to try to prevent infection, because it doesn't work.

Healthy 18-30 year olds are the main myocarditis population. I also think it is common sense that covid 19 can cause myocarditis in a post vaccination infection. For some reason, you argued vehemently against it.
Typical misleading spin. It's 10 cases after 8.7M doses which is presumably ~6 million kids. Cases haven't only arisen after second doses but you are only mentioning second doses in order to make the incidence seem higher than it is.

I should address your point on point on myocarditis in post-vaccination infection. Given the extent to which vaccination reduces serious cases, which protection has proven relatively durable, it's reasonable to believe that vaccination would also reduce the incidences of myocarditis post infection, just like it reduces incidences of hospitalization, death, and other negative outcomes. You are arguing from your anti-mRNA ideology which is why you slant absolutely everything you can to portray the safe and effective vaccines in a negative light.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.


Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
They have 18 lobbying firms working for them in Washington DC. 83 lobbyists are named. I don't know what they have internationally.
What vaccine developers have fewer than 83 employees?

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.

What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.

Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are good band-aids. As I have posted multiple times, I keep my discussions here. I am certainly not going to go cheer at an RFK rally. I generally am more supportive of your stance in other channels where people are less pro-mrna or pro-covid vaccine. I believe it is absolutely wrong to force Americans to only have a genetic vaccine choice when actual traditional vaccines are available throughout the world. I do not believe the mrna vaccines meet the safety requirements that vaccines typically require, and I believe forcing them as the only option has created more distrust of our public health officials. They made sense during the first wave and even delta, but the pendulum has shifted whereas the cost benefit analysis simply doesn't work for healthy people. Of course, the government's narrative shifts so that, no matter what happens, the solution is more mrna. Pfizer reports what appears to be a stellar immune booster response 2 weeks post booster and the media eats it up. The problem is that these antibodies disappear rapidly, very rapidly. Yet, the comparisons are made to other vaccines or situations on varying timelines, and nobody in the mainstream media questions it. So, if you are going to force college students (and other scenarios) to get boosted, offer something else.

You've been aggressively anti-mRNA since long before Omicron. You seem to be both holding Pfizer/Moderna to different standards than you would hold other vaccines and you are resolving all ambiguities in favor of other unproven vaccines. There are a number of other vaccines being used throughout the world and none have yet proven themselves to be better than Pfizer on any of the criteria that you have identified. Everyone wants something better than we have, but wanting doesn't count for anything. I hope the Hotez vaccine proves to be safer and more effective than Pfizer and that it could really help vaccinate the world. That hope doesn't change the reality we currently live in. Sinovac is a traditional vaccine but have proven far less effective than mRNA. The AZ vaccine has its own problems.

I hope that once we get some real world experience with Novavax/Inovio we find that they are better in every way than the choices we have available. If you think offering these comparatively untested and experimental vaccines to people on an EUA basis will somehow make it through the anti-vaxxer defenses, you haven't been paying attention.


I became more vocal when the CDC pushed to vaccinate young kids with pfizer almost two years post EUA of Pfizer and still no alternatives to mRNA/adeno were available in the USA to even adults.
Oh come off it, do we need to go back in the thread to find where your anti-mRNA rhetoric started? Here's one from May. I'm sure there are others.

You've been complaining about myocarditis since long before the FDA approved kids. And myocarditis doesn't appear to be a concern for 5-11 anyway (or anyone other than males between 15-25). I trust that by now if myocarditis was a concern for kids under 11 it's all you would be talking about.


Do you know what I became more vocal means? Myocarditis is a concern for kids. Thanks.
There have been something like 1 case of myocarditis per million doses in 5-11 year olds. It's a background risk.

If you want to get technical about semantics, you can pretend that your threshold for vocal hasn't been met yet. From the perspective of people in this thread, you've been vocal for a long time.


The CDC reported 8 cases out of 2 million second doses age 5-11.

I am grateful that they lowered the dose in this age range but very skeptical of the durabily / cost benefit analysis of it. Hopefully, they won't be boosting kids to try to prevent infection, because it doesn't work.

Healthy 18-30 year olds are the main myocarditis population. I also think it is common sense that covid 19 can cause myocarditis in a post vaccination infection. For some reason, you argued vehemently against it.
Typical misleading spin. It's 10 cases after 8.7M doses which is presumably ~6 million kids. Cases haven't only arisen after second doses but you are only mentioning second doses in order to make the incidence seem higher than it is.

I should address your point on point on myocarditis in post-vaccination infection. Given the extent to which vaccination reduces serious cases, which protection has proven relatively durable, it's reasonable to believe that vaccination would also reduce the incidences of myocarditis post infection, just like it reduces incidences of hospitalization, death, and other negative outcomes. You are arguing from your anti-mRNA ideology which is why you slant absolutely everything you can to portray the safe and effective vaccines in a negative light.


You need two doses to be vaccinated. So, two million are vaccinated. There are 8 cases. It is 1/250,000.

Are you dense or purposely misleading? I personally think you are so passionate about defending these vaccines you lose all sense of truth and falsity. You don't even know when you are bending the truth.

Calling me misleading here. That is hilarious and sad.

Logically, vaccination could reduce covid 19 caused myocarditis. It probably does. However, you stated earlier there is zero proof that vaccinated people can get myocarditis from covid 19 (you used to argue there was zero proof the vaccines caused myocarditis only because the US had not acknowledged it). The risk/benefit statistics you site never factor in the possibility of vaccinated covid 19 caused myocarditis. It is a flaw. Almost everything is slanted towards more vaccine uptake.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.


Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
They have 18 lobbying firms working for them in Washington DC. 83 lobbyists are named. I don't know what they have internationally.
What vaccine developers have fewer than 83 employees?

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.

What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.

Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are good band-aids. As I have posted multiple times, I keep my discussions here. I am certainly not going to go cheer at an RFK rally. I generally am more supportive of your stance in other channels where people are less pro-mrna or pro-covid vaccine. I believe it is absolutely wrong to force Americans to only have a genetic vaccine choice when actual traditional vaccines are available throughout the world. I do not believe the mrna vaccines meet the safety requirements that vaccines typically require, and I believe forcing them as the only option has created more distrust of our public health officials. They made sense during the first wave and even delta, but the pendulum has shifted whereas the cost benefit analysis simply doesn't work for healthy people. Of course, the government's narrative shifts so that, no matter what happens, the solution is more mrna. Pfizer reports what appears to be a stellar immune booster response 2 weeks post booster and the media eats it up. The problem is that these antibodies disappear rapidly, very rapidly. Yet, the comparisons are made to other vaccines or situations on varying timelines, and nobody in the mainstream media questions it. So, if you are going to force college students (and other scenarios) to get boosted, offer something else.

You've been aggressively anti-mRNA since long before Omicron. You seem to be both holding Pfizer/Moderna to different standards than you would hold other vaccines and you are resolving all ambiguities in favor of other unproven vaccines. There are a number of other vaccines being used throughout the world and none have yet proven themselves to be better than Pfizer on any of the criteria that you have identified. Everyone wants something better than we have, but wanting doesn't count for anything. I hope the Hotez vaccine proves to be safer and more effective than Pfizer and that it could really help vaccinate the world. That hope doesn't change the reality we currently live in. Sinovac is a traditional vaccine but have proven far less effective than mRNA. The AZ vaccine has its own problems.

I hope that once we get some real world experience with Novavax/Inovio we find that they are better in every way than the choices we have available. If you think offering these comparatively untested and experimental vaccines to people on an EUA basis will somehow make it through the anti-vaxxer defenses, you haven't been paying attention.


I became more vocal when the CDC pushed to vaccinate young kids with pfizer almost two years post EUA of Pfizer and still no alternatives to mRNA/adeno were available in the USA to even adults.
Oh come off it, do we need to go back in the thread to find where your anti-mRNA rhetoric started? Here's one from May. I'm sure there are others.

You've been complaining about myocarditis since long before the FDA approved kids. And myocarditis doesn't appear to be a concern for 5-11 anyway (or anyone other than males between 15-25). I trust that by now if myocarditis was a concern for kids under 11 it's all you would be talking about.


Do you know what I became more vocal means? Myocarditis is a concern for kids. Thanks.
There have been something like 1 case of myocarditis per million doses in 5-11 year olds. It's a background risk.

If you want to get technical about semantics, you can pretend that your threshold for vocal hasn't been met yet. From the perspective of people in this thread, you've been vocal for a long time.


The CDC reported 8 cases out of 2 million second doses age 5-11.

I am grateful that they lowered the dose in this age range but very skeptical of the durabily / cost benefit analysis of it. Hopefully, they won't be boosting kids to try to prevent infection, because it doesn't work.

Healthy 18-30 year olds are the main myocarditis population. I also think it is common sense that covid 19 can cause myocarditis in a post vaccination infection. For some reason, you argued vehemently against it.
Typical misleading spin. It's 10 cases after 8.7M doses which is presumably ~6 million kids. Cases haven't only arisen after second doses but you are only mentioning second doses in order to make the incidence seem higher than it is.

I should address your point on point on myocarditis in post-vaccination infection. Given the extent to which vaccination reduces serious cases, which protection has proven relatively durable, it's reasonable to believe that vaccination would also reduce the incidences of myocarditis post infection, just like it reduces incidences of hospitalization, death, and other negative outcomes. You are arguing from your anti-mRNA ideology which is why you slant absolutely everything you can to portray the safe and effective vaccines in a negative light.


You need two doses to be vaccinated. So, two million are vaccinated. There are 8 cases. It is 1/250,000.

Are you dense or purposely misleading? I personally think you are so passive ante about defending these vaccines you lose all sense of truth and falsity. You don't even know when you are bending the truth.

Calling me misleading here. That is hilarious and sad.
This is hilarious coming from you.

I'm sorry that it's become so hard for you to discredit safe and effective vaccines so you have to resort to more and more desperate and weak criticisms. The vaccines have proven extremely easy to tolerate for the vast majority of children and to this point we have seen an extremely low number of serious adverse events across almost 9 million doses. You spend months discrediting vaccines for children and trying to generate fear and antipathy towards mRNA's use in children and so far it looks like it was all a bunch of hot air.

You should be celebrating these results but instead you are mischaracterizing them to make it seem like they're concerning.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.


Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
They have 18 lobbying firms working for them in Washington DC. 83 lobbyists are named. I don't know what they have internationally.
What vaccine developers have fewer than 83 employees?

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.

What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.

Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are good band-aids. As I have posted multiple times, I keep my discussions here. I am certainly not going to go cheer at an RFK rally. I generally am more supportive of your stance in other channels where people are less pro-mrna or pro-covid vaccine. I believe it is absolutely wrong to force Americans to only have a genetic vaccine choice when actual traditional vaccines are available throughout the world. I do not believe the mrna vaccines meet the safety requirements that vaccines typically require, and I believe forcing them as the only option has created more distrust of our public health officials. They made sense during the first wave and even delta, but the pendulum has shifted whereas the cost benefit analysis simply doesn't work for healthy people. Of course, the government's narrative shifts so that, no matter what happens, the solution is more mrna. Pfizer reports what appears to be a stellar immune booster response 2 weeks post booster and the media eats it up. The problem is that these antibodies disappear rapidly, very rapidly. Yet, the comparisons are made to other vaccines or situations on varying timelines, and nobody in the mainstream media questions it. So, if you are going to force college students (and other scenarios) to get boosted, offer something else.

You've been aggressively anti-mRNA since long before Omicron. You seem to be both holding Pfizer/Moderna to different standards than you would hold other vaccines and you are resolving all ambiguities in favor of other unproven vaccines. There are a number of other vaccines being used throughout the world and none have yet proven themselves to be better than Pfizer on any of the criteria that you have identified. Everyone wants something better than we have, but wanting doesn't count for anything. I hope the Hotez vaccine proves to be safer and more effective than Pfizer and that it could really help vaccinate the world. That hope doesn't change the reality we currently live in. Sinovac is a traditional vaccine but have proven far less effective than mRNA. The AZ vaccine has its own problems.

I hope that once we get some real world experience with Novavax/Inovio we find that they are better in every way than the choices we have available. If you think offering these comparatively untested and experimental vaccines to people on an EUA basis will somehow make it through the anti-vaxxer defenses, you haven't been paying attention.


I became more vocal when the CDC pushed to vaccinate young kids with pfizer almost two years post EUA of Pfizer and still no alternatives to mRNA/adeno were available in the USA to even adults.
Oh come off it, do we need to go back in the thread to find where your anti-mRNA rhetoric started? Here's one from May. I'm sure there are others.

You've been complaining about myocarditis since long before the FDA approved kids. And myocarditis doesn't appear to be a concern for 5-11 anyway (or anyone other than males between 15-25). I trust that by now if myocarditis was a concern for kids under 11 it's all you would be talking about.


Do you know what I became more vocal means? Myocarditis is a concern for kids. Thanks.
There have been something like 1 case of myocarditis per million doses in 5-11 year olds. It's a background risk.

If you want to get technical about semantics, you can pretend that your threshold for vocal hasn't been met yet. From the perspective of people in this thread, you've been vocal for a long time.


The CDC reported 8 cases out of 2 million second doses age 5-11.

I am grateful that they lowered the dose in this age range but very skeptical of the durabily / cost benefit analysis of it. Hopefully, they won't be boosting kids to try to prevent infection, because it doesn't work.

Healthy 18-30 year olds are the main myocarditis population. I also think it is common sense that covid 19 can cause myocarditis in a post vaccination infection. For some reason, you argued vehemently against it.
Typical misleading spin. It's 10 cases after 8.7M doses which is presumably ~6 million kids. Cases haven't only arisen after second doses but you are only mentioning second doses in order to make the incidence seem higher than it is.

I should address your point on point on myocarditis in post-vaccination infection. Given the extent to which vaccination reduces serious cases, which protection has proven relatively durable, it's reasonable to believe that vaccination would also reduce the incidences of myocarditis post infection, just like it reduces incidences of hospitalization, death, and other negative outcomes. You are arguing from your anti-mRNA ideology which is why you slant absolutely everything you can to portray the safe and effective vaccines in a negative light.


You need two doses to be vaccinated. So, two million are vaccinated. There are 8 cases. It is 1/250,000.

Are you dense or purposely misleading? I personally think you are so passive ante about defending these vaccines you lose all sense of truth and falsity. You don't even know when you are bending the truth.

Calling me misleading here. That is hilarious and sad.
This is hilarious coming from you.

I'm sorry that it's become so hard for you to discredit safe and effective vaccines so you have to resort to more and more desperate and weak criticisms. The vaccines have proven extremely easy to tolerate for the vast majority of children and to this point we have seen an extremely low number of serious adverse events across almost 9 million doses. You spend months discrediting vaccines for children and trying to generate fear and antipathy towards mRNA's use in children and so far it looks like it was all a bunch of hot air.

You should be celebrating these results but instead you are mischaracterizing them to make it seem like they're concerning.


You were wrong. I was right. You give more these vaccines are great, and I should be grateful and not criticize them rhetoric. Got it. Lol.

Is there any forum where it is okay to challenge them, USucks?
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.


Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
They have 18 lobbying firms working for them in Washington DC. 83 lobbyists are named. I don't know what they have internationally.
What vaccine developers have fewer than 83 employees?

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.

What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.

Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are good band-aids. As I have posted multiple times, I keep my discussions here. I am certainly not going to go cheer at an RFK rally. I generally am more supportive of your stance in other channels where people are less pro-mrna or pro-covid vaccine. I believe it is absolutely wrong to force Americans to only have a genetic vaccine choice when actual traditional vaccines are available throughout the world. I do not believe the mrna vaccines meet the safety requirements that vaccines typically require, and I believe forcing them as the only option has created more distrust of our public health officials. They made sense during the first wave and even delta, but the pendulum has shifted whereas the cost benefit analysis simply doesn't work for healthy people. Of course, the government's narrative shifts so that, no matter what happens, the solution is more mrna. Pfizer reports what appears to be a stellar immune booster response 2 weeks post booster and the media eats it up. The problem is that these antibodies disappear rapidly, very rapidly. Yet, the comparisons are made to other vaccines or situations on varying timelines, and nobody in the mainstream media questions it. So, if you are going to force college students (and other scenarios) to get boosted, offer something else.

You've been aggressively anti-mRNA since long before Omicron. You seem to be both holding Pfizer/Moderna to different standards than you would hold other vaccines and you are resolving all ambiguities in favor of other unproven vaccines. There are a number of other vaccines being used throughout the world and none have yet proven themselves to be better than Pfizer on any of the criteria that you have identified. Everyone wants something better than we have, but wanting doesn't count for anything. I hope the Hotez vaccine proves to be safer and more effective than Pfizer and that it could really help vaccinate the world. That hope doesn't change the reality we currently live in. Sinovac is a traditional vaccine but have proven far less effective than mRNA. The AZ vaccine has its own problems.

I hope that once we get some real world experience with Novavax/Inovio we find that they are better in every way than the choices we have available. If you think offering these comparatively untested and experimental vaccines to people on an EUA basis will somehow make it through the anti-vaxxer defenses, you haven't been paying attention.


I became more vocal when the CDC pushed to vaccinate young kids with pfizer almost two years post EUA of Pfizer and still no alternatives to mRNA/adeno were available in the USA to even adults.
Oh come off it, do we need to go back in the thread to find where your anti-mRNA rhetoric started? Here's one from May. I'm sure there are others.

You've been complaining about myocarditis since long before the FDA approved kids. And myocarditis doesn't appear to be a concern for 5-11 anyway (or anyone other than males between 15-25). I trust that by now if myocarditis was a concern for kids under 11 it's all you would be talking about.


Do you know what I became more vocal means? Myocarditis is a concern for kids. Thanks.
There have been something like 1 case of myocarditis per million doses in 5-11 year olds. It's a background risk.

If you want to get technical about semantics, you can pretend that your threshold for vocal hasn't been met yet. From the perspective of people in this thread, you've been vocal for a long time.


The CDC reported 8 cases out of 2 million second doses age 5-11.

I am grateful that they lowered the dose in this age range but very skeptical of the durabily / cost benefit analysis of it. Hopefully, they won't be boosting kids to try to prevent infection, because it doesn't work.

Healthy 18-30 year olds are the main myocarditis population. I also think it is common sense that covid 19 can cause myocarditis in a post vaccination infection. For some reason, you argued vehemently against it.
Typical misleading spin. It's 10 cases after 8.7M doses which is presumably ~6 million kids. Cases haven't only arisen after second doses but you are only mentioning second doses in order to make the incidence seem higher than it is.

I should address your point on point on myocarditis in post-vaccination infection. Given the extent to which vaccination reduces serious cases, which protection has proven relatively durable, it's reasonable to believe that vaccination would also reduce the incidences of myocarditis post infection, just like it reduces incidences of hospitalization, death, and other negative outcomes. You are arguing from your anti-mRNA ideology which is why you slant absolutely everything you can to portray the safe and effective vaccines in a negative light.


You need two doses to be vaccinated. So, two million are vaccinated. There are 8 cases. It is 1/250,000.

Are you dense or purposely misleading? I personally think you are so passive ante about defending these vaccines you lose all sense of truth and falsity. You don't even know when you are bending the truth.

Calling me misleading here. That is hilarious and sad.
This is hilarious coming from you.

I'm sorry that it's become so hard for you to discredit safe and effective vaccines so you have to resort to more and more desperate and weak criticisms. The vaccines have proven extremely easy to tolerate for the vast majority of children and to this point we have seen an extremely low number of serious adverse events across almost 9 million doses. You spend months discrediting vaccines for children and trying to generate fear and antipathy towards mRNA's use in children and so far it looks like it was all a bunch of hot air.

You should be celebrating these results but instead you are mischaracterizing them to make it seem like they're concerning.


You were wrong. I was right. You give more these vaccines are great, and I should be grateful and not criticize them rhetoric. Got it. Lol.

Is there any forum where it is okay to challenge them, USucks?


I'm probably the wrong person to ask about the right place to spread false and misleading anti-vaccine misinformation but I would suggest that BearInsider is not that place.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.


What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.


Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
They have 18 lobbying firms working for them in Washington DC. 83 lobbyists are named. I don't know what they have internationally.
What vaccine developers have fewer than 83 employees?

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

The vaccines still seem to provide long-term protection against serious illness or death, even if infection is still possible. That's why people should get vaxxed, to significantly lower your risk of dying.
Hey, 003 has an agenda to push. Stop with your common-sense talk.

What is my agenda?
Based on your posting history, it's clearly to sow distrust in mRNA vaccines. You attack the CDC, Fauci, Big Pharma, etc. and promote Novavax and Inovio. If I were even more cynical, I would point to a possible financial interest (do you hold positions in NVAX or INO?), the same way you impugn the CDC and others due to financial entanglements with with Moderna and Pfizer.

You take every opportunity possible and use liberties to paint mRNA vaccines in a negative light. You don't bother to rigorously fact check negative information which you post and you admit that there is even shakier stuff that you don't post - probably because you know it would make you look even worse here. Obviously you come into contact with that stuff during your regular trolling of the anti-vaxxer internet. Which makes perfect sense because you have an agenda.

I'll give you credit that from time to time you acknowledge reality with the vaccines and that you are generally pretty even handed in acknowledging known facts on the ground with COVID. Unlike a number of politically motivated posters, I don't dismiss things that you say offhand. But that doesn't mean that you aren't purposefully attempting to unfairly malign the safest and most effective tools that we have to fight COVID right now.

Pfizer has more lobbyists in Washington than the non BP vaccine developers have employees. Why are we now trying to diminish the WHO's efforts to vaccinate the world. They are literally trying to buy and distribute $5 vaccines that can last a year in room temperature. Why are we spending $20 for mRNA doses? This is nuts.
How many lobbyists do you think Pfizer has?

I agree by the way that it's crazy that we are buying Pfizer to distribute outside the US when there are other cheaper vaccines that have been approved elsewhere and would be easier to transport, store and administer. You aren't wrong that corporate influence is problematic and that this could be a perfect example of it.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thankful for mRNA vaccines or that the government should have chosen Novavax or Inovio. I would have been fine with the government pouring more resources into alternative vaccines but I'm thankful we didn't choose the alternatives at the expense of Pfizer/Moderna which proved themselves capable of actually producing safe and effective vaccines, something that the others you push for have obviously struggled with.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are good band-aids. As I have posted multiple times, I keep my discussions here. I am certainly not going to go cheer at an RFK rally. I generally am more supportive of your stance in other channels where people are less pro-mrna or pro-covid vaccine. I believe it is absolutely wrong to force Americans to only have a genetic vaccine choice when actual traditional vaccines are available throughout the world. I do not believe the mrna vaccines meet the safety requirements that vaccines typically require, and I believe forcing them as the only option has created more distrust of our public health officials. They made sense during the first wave and even delta, but the pendulum has shifted whereas the cost benefit analysis simply doesn't work for healthy people. Of course, the government's narrative shifts so that, no matter what happens, the solution is more mrna. Pfizer reports what appears to be a stellar immune booster response 2 weeks post booster and the media eats it up. The problem is that these antibodies disappear rapidly, very rapidly. Yet, the comparisons are made to other vaccines or situations on varying timelines, and nobody in the mainstream media questions it. So, if you are going to force college students (and other scenarios) to get boosted, offer something else.

You've been aggressively anti-mRNA since long before Omicron. You seem to be both holding Pfizer/Moderna to different standards than you would hold other vaccines and you are resolving all ambiguities in favor of other unproven vaccines. There are a number of other vaccines being used throughout the world and none have yet proven themselves to be better than Pfizer on any of the criteria that you have identified. Everyone wants something better than we have, but wanting doesn't count for anything. I hope the Hotez vaccine proves to be safer and more effective than Pfizer and that it could really help vaccinate the world. That hope doesn't change the reality we currently live in. Sinovac is a traditional vaccine but have proven far less effective than mRNA. The AZ vaccine has its own problems.

I hope that once we get some real world experience with Novavax/Inovio we find that they are better in every way than the choices we have available. If you think offering these comparatively untested and experimental vaccines to people on an EUA basis will somehow make it through the anti-vaxxer defenses, you haven't been paying attention.


I became more vocal when the CDC pushed to vaccinate young kids with pfizer almost two years post EUA of Pfizer and still no alternatives to mRNA/adeno were available in the USA to even adults.
Oh come off it, do we need to go back in the thread to find where your anti-mRNA rhetoric started? Here's one from May. I'm sure there are others.

You've been complaining about myocarditis since long before the FDA approved kids. And myocarditis doesn't appear to be a concern for 5-11 anyway (or anyone other than males between 15-25). I trust that by now if myocarditis was a concern for kids under 11 it's all you would be talking about.


Do you know what I became more vocal means? Myocarditis is a concern for kids. Thanks.
There have been something like 1 case of myocarditis per million doses in 5-11 year olds. It's a background risk.

If you want to get technical about semantics, you can pretend that your threshold for vocal hasn't been met yet. From the perspective of people in this thread, you've been vocal for a long time.


The CDC reported 8 cases out of 2 million second doses age 5-11.

I am grateful that they lowered the dose in this age range but very skeptical of the durabily / cost benefit analysis of it. Hopefully, they won't be boosting kids to try to prevent infection, because it doesn't work.

Healthy 18-30 year olds are the main myocarditis population. I also think it is common sense that covid 19 can cause myocarditis in a post vaccination infection. For some reason, you argued vehemently against it.
Typical misleading spin. It's 10 cases after 8.7M doses which is presumably ~6 million kids. Cases haven't only arisen after second doses but you are only mentioning second doses in order to make the incidence seem higher than it is.

I should address your point on point on myocarditis in post-vaccination infection. Given the extent to which vaccination reduces serious cases, which protection has proven relatively durable, it's reasonable to believe that vaccination would also reduce the incidences of myocarditis post infection, just like it reduces incidences of hospitalization, death, and other negative outcomes. You are arguing from your anti-mRNA ideology which is why you slant absolutely everything you can to portray the safe and effective vaccines in a negative light.


You need two doses to be vaccinated. So, two million are vaccinated. There are 8 cases. It is 1/250,000.

Are you dense or purposely misleading? I personally think you are so passive ante about defending these vaccines you lose all sense of truth and falsity. You don't even know when you are bending the truth.

Calling me misleading here. That is hilarious and sad.
This is hilarious coming from you.

I'm sorry that it's become so hard for you to discredit safe and effective vaccines so you have to resort to more and more desperate and weak criticisms. The vaccines have proven extremely easy to tolerate for the vast majority of children and to this point we have seen an extremely low number of serious adverse events across almost 9 million doses. You spend months discrediting vaccines for children and trying to generate fear and antipathy towards mRNA's use in children and so far it looks like it was all a bunch of hot air.

You should be celebrating these results but instead you are mischaracterizing them to make it seem like they're concerning.


You were wrong. I was right. You give more these vaccines are great, and I should be grateful and not criticize them rhetoric. Got it. Lol.

Is there any forum where it is okay to challenge them, USucks?


I'm probably the wrong person to ask about the right place to spread false and misleading anti-vaccine misinformation but I would suggest that BearInsider is not that place.


Just because you don't like to hear it, it doesn't make it false and misleading. You will be okay, sugar.

https://www.acorianooriental.pt/noticia/pediatra-jorge-amil-pede-as-autoridades-que-reapreciem-vacinacao-das-criancas-334802

Again, it takes two doses to inoculate a child. Your misleading studies evaluate efficiency on two doses but myocarditis risk by each dose. You can't have your cake and eat it to.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.