How do you define a "flood?" How many anecdotes? How does that number compare to the total number of people who have taken the vaccine?Zippergate said:
I'm not going to claim it's a hoax, but you should examine what that thread ACTUALLY says, which is that this girl got the vaccine, then started to have health problems (eventually diagnosed as myocarditis), and later died. Her parents say they think the vaccine was related, but they are not doctors and can't be sure. That's all the information contained here. It's a compelling anecdotal example, but that's it. You need much broader evidence to know exactly what the risk is.
Well said, and if it were just this one anecdote or even a few here and there, it wouldn't merit discussion. But that's not what we're seeing. There's a flood of these anecdotes. Just because they don't appear on CNN doesn't mean they aren't out there.
Vaccine Redux - Vax up and go to Class
569,631 Views |
5432 Replies |
Last: 55 min ago by Zippergate
zippergate why is your blue check buddy Alex Berenson suppressing information about Ivermectin? Is he part of the cabal trying to ruin your life with an effective vaccine? Is he being paid to cancel Ivermectin?
I think it's weird that a lice medication would safely and effectively treat COVID, but if it can be proven to do so I'm all for it. My understanding is that the drug is being tested in trials right now. Why are you opposed to using trials to determine safety and efficacy before recommending a medication?
For whatever reason there is a faction in this country who falls in love with untested miracle cures rather than rely on tested and proven effective treatments and vaccines. I have no idea of Ivermectin will ultimately be proven to be safe and effective. For the sake of countries like India and Brazil with large infected populations and the rest of the world that largely doesn't yet have access to vaccines, continuing to find safe and effective treatments is important. For the US, I know that other treatments have been shown to be helpful and that the vaccines are incredibly effective. This Invermectin infatuation feels just like Forsythia in the movie Contagion and I'm sure there will be some other miracle cure that people like you will tout at some point. I will continue to listen to doctors and public health officials.
I think it's weird that a lice medication would safely and effectively treat COVID, but if it can be proven to do so I'm all for it. My understanding is that the drug is being tested in trials right now. Why are you opposed to using trials to determine safety and efficacy before recommending a medication?
For whatever reason there is a faction in this country who falls in love with untested miracle cures rather than rely on tested and proven effective treatments and vaccines. I have no idea of Ivermectin will ultimately be proven to be safe and effective. For the sake of countries like India and Brazil with large infected populations and the rest of the world that largely doesn't yet have access to vaccines, continuing to find safe and effective treatments is important. For the US, I know that other treatments have been shown to be helpful and that the vaccines are incredibly effective. This Invermectin infatuation feels just like Forsythia in the movie Contagion and I'm sure there will be some other miracle cure that people like you will tout at some point. I will continue to listen to doctors and public health officials.
Google search, first result:
Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19
I also find some of the conspiracy theorizing here ridiculous. Yes, I'm sure "Big Pharma" has some unethical impulses towards selling more of their drugs for more money. That money has to come from somewhere, though. You think Big Medicine (the doctors and hospitals) and Big Government (which is currently buying COVID vaccines in order to stem a public health crisis) would just sit around and let the pharmaceutical companies gouge them if they knew there was a much cheaper way to manage a disease? Be reasonable.
The far more likely scenario here is that ivermectin is not being used right now mostly because its efficacy hasn't been proven enough yet.
Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19
Quote:
The FDA has not reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or to prevent COVID-19; however, some initial research is underway. Taking a drug for an unapproved use can be very dangerous. This is true of ivermectin, too.
I also find some of the conspiracy theorizing here ridiculous. Yes, I'm sure "Big Pharma" has some unethical impulses towards selling more of their drugs for more money. That money has to come from somewhere, though. You think Big Medicine (the doctors and hospitals) and Big Government (which is currently buying COVID vaccines in order to stem a public health crisis) would just sit around and let the pharmaceutical companies gouge them if they knew there was a much cheaper way to manage a disease? Be reasonable.
The far more likely scenario here is that ivermectin is not being used right now mostly because its efficacy hasn't been proven enough yet.
Also, just because the number of infections in the US is small, that is not the case elsewhere in the world. There is HUGE interest in effective treatments in places where covid is not under control. I know India is looking at effective treatments. I believe some are undergoing clinical trials...the proper way to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a drug.
Edit: Molnupiravir is one such drug.
Edit: Molnupiravir is one such drug.
Unit2Sucks said:
zippergate why is your blue check buddy Alex Berenson suppressing information about Ivermectin? Is he part of the cabal trying to ruin your life with an effective vaccine? Is he being paid to cancel Ivermectin?
Huh? Nonsensical and not even witty.
I think it's weird that a lice medication would safely and effectively treat COVID, but if it can be proven to do so I'm all for it. My understanding is that the drug is being tested in trials right now. Why are you opposed to using trials to determine safety and efficacy before recommending a medication?
Are we supposed to be impressed by the fact that you think it's "weird"? As I said before, Ivermectin has known anti-viral properties. Perhaps that it is why the infection and fatality rates in Africa are so much lower than in the developed world because of their widespread use of this "weird" lice medication.
The use of drugs off-label is an extremely common practice. There is nothing sinister about trying old drugs in new applications. But you'd have to be a moron to expect Merck to the clinical testing to prove the efficacy of Ivermectin in Covid given the drug's generic status.
Dr. Kory testified before the Senate six months ago. His testimony was based on "mountains of evidence" and Ivermectin is being used in many countries on that basis.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/epidemiologic-analyses-on-covid19-and-ivermectin/
Look at the data. Even just the first graph here comparing regions in Peru where Ivermectin was used versus regions where is wasn't.
Your whole worldview is based on the premise that the NIH, FDA, CDC etc. will always act in a timely, unbiased way. That is a assumption, not a fact. But what if they don't? I understand that is an extraordinary claim which demands extraordinary evidence. So I say, evaluate the evidence for yourself, not by running the claim through google or snopes, but by actually listening to what people like Dr. Kory have to say. Why listen to him? Because he and his group are experts according to any standard you want to bring to the discussion, he saved many lives due to his testimony before the Senate on corticosteroids which resulted in a change to the standard of care, and his testimony on Ivermectin is supported by hard, peer-reviewed and published data across many countries,
When virtually everyone is vaccinated, then they will approve Ivermectin. That's how the Big Pharma Industrial Complex works.
Wow, just wow.
Two of the Three Vaccines to get EUA are mRNA vaccines.
The first vaccine is from Pfizer, which now employs ex-FDA commissioner Scott Gotlieb, who has ownership in such.
The second vaccine is from Flagship Pioneering backed Moderna. Trump's FDA chief is now in talks to join Flagship Pioneering.
Pay to play.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/06/14/hahn-job-talks-flagship/
Two of the Three Vaccines to get EUA are mRNA vaccines.
The first vaccine is from Pfizer, which now employs ex-FDA commissioner Scott Gotlieb, who has ownership in such.
The second vaccine is from Flagship Pioneering backed Moderna. Trump's FDA chief is now in talks to join Flagship Pioneering.
Pay to play.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/06/14/hahn-job-talks-flagship/
Did you watch the testimony of Dr. Kory at the Senate hearing? That's what I thought. Why think for yourself when google can do it for you. (And we all know how altruistic and impartial google and the rest of big tech are)sycasey said:
Google search, first result:
Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19Quote:
The FDA has not reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or to prevent COVID-19; however, some initial research is underway. Taking a drug for an unapproved use can be very dangerous. This is true of ivermectin, too.
I also find some of the conspiracy theorizing here ridiculous. Yes, I'm sure "Big Pharma" has some unethical impulses towards selling more of their drugs for more money. That money has to come from somewhere, though. You think Big Medicine (the doctors and hospitals) and Big Government (which is currently buying COVID vaccines in order to stem a public health crisis) would just sit around and let the pharmaceutical companies gouge them if they knew there was a much cheaper way to manage a disease? Be reasonable.
The far more likely scenario here is that ivermectin is not being used right now mostly because its efficacy hasn't been proven enough yet.
Nothing to see here move along. How dare you call into question the integrity of the Big Pharma Industrial Complex.oski003 said:
Wow, just wow.
Two of the Three Vaccines to get EUA are mRNA vaccines.
The first vaccine is from Pfizer, which now employs ex-FDA commissioner Scott Gotlieb, who has ownership in such.
The second vaccine is from Flagship Pioneering backed Moderna. Trump's FDA chief is now in talks to join Flagship Pioneering.
Pay to play.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/06/14/hahn-job-talks-flagship/
LOL, I appreciate that oski003 and zippergate have come clean about their embrace of conspiracy theories.
As for Ivermectin, it appears that people who are promoting the use of the drug before it's proven safe and effective in trials are also promoting its widespread use as a prophylactic. According to Merck (see below), there are numerous side effects associated with Ivermectin, including tachychardia in 1 out of 30 subjects, but that doesn't seem to bother zippergate one bit.
If the clinical trials show Ivermectin to be safe and effective, it would be a nice low-cost addition to the COVID treatment landscape. As of June 2021, I don't think it's reasonable to advocate the delay of vaccination in the United States.
The continuous flow of false and misleading information from vaccine skeptics and out and out conspiracy theorists on a Cal associated website is disappointing, to say the least. It feels like Cal88 is back.
As for Ivermectin, it appears that people who are promoting the use of the drug before it's proven safe and effective in trials are also promoting its widespread use as a prophylactic. According to Merck (see below), there are numerous side effects associated with Ivermectin, including tachychardia in 1 out of 30 subjects, but that doesn't seem to bother zippergate one bit.
Quote:
In clinical trials involving 963 adult patients treated with 100 to 200 mcg/kg STROMECTOL, worsening of the following Mazzotti reactions during the first 4 days post-treatment were reported: arthralgia/synovitis (9.3%), axillary lymph node enlargement and tenderness (11.0% and 4.4%, respectively), cervical lymph node enlargement and tenderness (5.3% and 1.2%, respectively), inguinal lymph node enlargement and tenderness (12.6% and 13.9%, respectively), other lymph node enlargement and tenderness (3.0% and 1.9%, respectively), pruritus (27.5%), skin involvement including edema, papular and pustular or frank urticarial rash (22.7%), and fever (22.6%).
In clinical trials involving 963 adult patients who received 100 to 200 mcg/kg STROMECTOL, the following clinical adverse reactions were reported as possibly, probably, or definitely related to the drug in 1% of the patients: facial edema (1.2%), peripheral edema (3.2%), orthostatic hypotension (1.1%), and tachycardia (3.5%). Drug-related headache and myalgia occurred in <1% of patients (0.2% and 0.4% respectively).
If the clinical trials show Ivermectin to be safe and effective, it would be a nice low-cost addition to the COVID treatment landscape. As of June 2021, I don't think it's reasonable to advocate the delay of vaccination in the United States.
The continuous flow of false and misleading information from vaccine skeptics and out and out conspiracy theorists on a Cal associated website is disappointing, to say the least. It feels like Cal88 is back.
Did you watch Dr. Kory's testimony?
Did you watch Dr. Kory's testimony?
Did you watch Dr. Kory's testimony?
No you didn't. Because you only look at sources that confirm your own entrenched, biased delusions.
Did you watch Dr. Kory's testimony?
Did you watch Dr. Kory's testimony?
No you didn't. Because you only look at sources that confirm your own entrenched, biased delusions.
Irony.Zippergate said:
Why think for yourself when google can do it for you.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9768999400
Quote:
CLAIM: The antiparasitic drug ivermectin "has a miraculous effectiveness that obliterates" the transmission of COVID-19 and will prevent people from getting sick.
AP'S ASSESSMENT: False. There's no evidence ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19.
Shorter Zippergate:Zippergate said:Unit2Sucks said:
zippergate why is your blue check buddy Alex Berenson suppressing information about Ivermectin? Is he part of the cabal trying to ruin your life with an effective vaccine? Is he being paid to cancel Ivermectin?
Huh? Nonsensical and not even witty.
I think it's weird that a lice medication would safely and effectively treat COVID, but if it can be proven to do so I'm all for it. My understanding is that the drug is being tested in trials right now. Why are you opposed to using trials to determine safety and efficacy before recommending a medication?
Are we supposed to be impressed by the fact that you think it's "weird"? As I said before, Ivermectin has known anti-viral properties. Perhaps that it is why the infection and fatality rates in Africa are so much lower than in the developed world because of their widespread use of this "weird" lice medication.
The use of drugs off-label is an extremely common practice. There is nothing sinister about trying old drugs in new applications. But you'd have to be a moron to expect Merck to the clinical testing to prove the efficacy of Ivermectin in Covid given the drug's generic status.
Dr. Kory testified before the Senate six months ago. His testimony was based on "mountains of evidence" and Ivermectin is being used in many countries on that basis.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/epidemiologic-analyses-on-covid19-and-ivermectin/
Look at the data. Even just the first graph here comparing regions in Peru where Ivermectin was used versus regions where is wasn't.
Your whole worldview is based on the premise that the NIH, FDA, CDC etc. will always act in a timely, unbiased way. That is a assumption, not a fact. But what if they don't? I understand that is an extraordinary claim which demands extraordinary evidence. So I say, evaluate the evidence for yourself, not by running the claim through google or snopes, but by actually listening to what people like Dr. Kory have to say. Why listen to him? Because he and his group are experts according to any standard you want to bring to the discussion, he saved many lives due to his testimony before the Senate on corticosteroids which resulted in a change to the standard of care, and his testimony on Ivermectin is supported by hard, peer-reviewed and published data across many countries,
When virtually everyone is vaccinated, then they will approve Ivermectin. That's how the Big Pharma Industrial Complex works.
"Think for yourself and just listen to this one guy!"
I read it because I prefer reading. You are so deep in conspiracy theories that you rely exclusively on one advocate to the exclusion of all reasonable sources to the contrary.Zippergate said:
Did you watch Dr. Kory's testimony?
Did you watch Dr. Kory's testimony?
Did you watch Dr. Kory's testimony?
No you didn't. Because you only look at sources that confirm your own entrenched, biased delusions.
There is a preprint from a few months ago that concluded that Ivermectin wasn't effective. I'm going to assume you haven't seen that preprint.
There's a leading researcher (Carlos Chaccour who you are surely aware of) who has been trying to determine whether Ivermectin is effective against COVID and has been criticized by fanatics like you. I'm going to assume you don't care what Chaccour says.
Derek Lowe, a blogger and well known medicinal chemist, wrote about Ivermectin just a few days ago but I'm sure you agree more with the conspiracy theory nuts who fill the comment section.Quote:
"All good conspiracy theories or lies have a bit of truth to it that's what makes them good," said Carlos Chaccour, assistant research professor at Barcelona Institute for Global Health and one of the first researchers to raise concerns about the drug's use for coronavirus.
In this case, it's known that ivermectin has some antiviral properties so researchers were right to investigate it at the start of the pandemic, he said.
In fact, Chaccour knows ivermectin better than most. He began work on the drug's ability to kill malaria vectors in 2007, and when people began dying around the world from a new virus early in 2020, Chaccour turned to the area in which he is an expert.
His work both supports the possibility that ivermectin could be used against coronavirus and debunks dodgy studies on the drug. This has made him an enemy to both sides, and even led to his wife receiving threats. Chaccour said he's been named "an assassin on the payroll from big pharma" and conversely "naive and advocate [for ivermectin]."
Quote:
My current opinion is pretty much exactly that of the WHO guidance: I do not think that the current evidence is strong enough to say that ivermectin is a useful therapy for coronavirus patients. I know that there are quite a few studies out there in the literature, but they suffer from various combinations of small sample size, poor trial design, not enough data reported, and (in many cases) inconclusive statistics. I think that WHO page does a solid job of evaluating the literature to that point, and overall, the better the quality of the evidence, the more it tends to show little or no effect of ivermectin.
Since that recommendation in March, nothing has appeared that changes my mind about that. [url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.27122][/url]
...
All in all, though, the most compelling reports of ivermectin's effects seem to come from the smallest and least controlled samples (all the way down to anecdotal results) while the larger and more well-controlled trials tend to produce equivocal evidence at best. This very much reminds me of the hydroxychloroquine situation, which topic I have no desire whatsoever to revisit. A similar landscape of "the harder you look, the less you see" obtained there, too. And I have to say, there is a passionate constituency for ivermectin treatment, as there was for hydroxychloroquine. I hear from people who are convinced that this is the cure for the pandemic, and they are (variously) baffled that others don't see it, zealous about spreading the word, or even ready to accuse the vaccine manufacturers and others of actively suppressing this treatment.
But as I said above, I look at the data and I'm not convinced, or certainly not yet (and neither are the WHO reviewers). The only way I can see the reaction of some of my correspondents is if they have been looking at all the most positive reports, accepting them completely and ignoring everything else, and that's no way to treat the medical literature. This was the case for HCQ as well, I'm afraid. If you haven't had to mess with drug discovery for a living, it's understandable that you hear that Some Person Somewhere was very sick, took New Therapy X, and suddenly got better, and then assume that there it is, the cure has been found. But that's not how it works. Real results stand up when you run larger, better-controlled trials, but most early results don't turn out to be all that real. Even when this is your job, it's frustrating to watch this happen, so I can only imagine how baffling it is if you haven't seen this kind of evaporation before.
And as for the further bunch that are ready to go the conspiracy-theory route, well, as you'd imagine, I'm not having it. As usual, letting that stuff into your head simplifies everything enormously. Things get way too simple, actually. Everything bad is Their Fault, and you're on the side of the good guys, the angels, struggling against the dark evil forces. It's a bit like the pre-modern habit of thinking that made someone, every time they come down with some illness or problem, immediately wonder what witch or evil spirit did this to them. Someone has to be to blame, because nothing "just happens". For the advanced conspiracy theorist, there are no accidents and there are no coincidences: things either directly support the all-encompassing theory, or they just show how the conspiracy is even bigger than it first appeared. It's non-falsifiable you can like your favorite conspiracy framework or you can love it, and those are your only choices.
Not that any of this matters to you because you are more than happy to rely on the testimony of exactly one person while attacking others without any hint of self-reflection.
For what it's worth, I don't have an opinion on whether Ivermectin is safe and effective for COVID treatment since I haven't seen anyone examine the results of legitimate trials on it. I do have an opinion on zippergate - which is that no one should rely on any advice from him since he has demonstrated a complete inability to separate conspiracy theory from reliable information.
Zippergate said:
Did you watch Dr. Kory's testimony?
Did you watch Dr. Kory's testimony?
Did you watch Dr. Kory's testimony?
No you didn't. Because you only look at sources that confirm your own entrenched, biased delusions.
Irony
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Discussion on mRNA vaccine caused myocarditis on June 18.
https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/an-update-on-myocarditis-cases?fbclid=IwAR1mXw1C1386dAhw85hti3ch6BLjK3bdZwbe3IUpuYsv9p5HtnCCnmbCfYI
https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/an-update-on-myocarditis-cases?fbclid=IwAR1mXw1C1386dAhw85hti3ch6BLjK3bdZwbe3IUpuYsv9p5HtnCCnmbCfYI
NY Times reporting on a study of 2m COVID survivors, nearly a quarter of whom continue to have medical problems, including those with mild or even asymptomatic COVID cases.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/health/covid-19-patients.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/health/covid-19-patients.html
Unit2Sucks said:
NY Times reporting on a study of 2m COVID survivors, nearly a quarter of whom continue to have medical problems, including those with mild or even asymptomatic COVID cases.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/health/covid-19-patients.html
Good post. We can't let our guard down against covid.
I posted this to help inform vaccine hesitant readers to better understand the risks of COVID itself so that they aren't just considering the potential risks of vaccines when making personal health decisions.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:
NY Times reporting on a study of 2m COVID survivors, nearly a quarter of whom continue to have medical problems, including those with mild or even asymptomatic COVID cases.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/health/covid-19-patients.html
Good post. We can't let our guard down against covid.
Unit2Sucks said:I posted this to help inform vaccine hesitant readers to better understand the risks of COVID itself so that they aren't just considering the potential risks of vaccines when making personal health decisions.oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:
NY Times reporting on a study of 2m COVID survivors, nearly a quarter of whom continue to have medical problems, including those with mild or even asymptomatic COVID cases.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/health/covid-19-patients.html
Good post. We can't let our guard down against covid.
Good job.
Please check out the second link. The "quacks" are getting more legitimate. Btw, I have never said no vaccine is better than a mRNA vaccine. We just need safer ones.
https://t.co/FpEuLHtMnU at the 29:32 https://t.co/rp0ORe2g3V
https://t.co/FpEuLHtMnU at the 29:32 https://t.co/rp0ORe2g3V
Qualified professionals doing research aren't necessarily quacks and to my knowledge no one here has said anything like that. What I think we have all said is that we should let the process play out. Fortunately we don't have to rely on the armchair "research" from people like you who believe there is some grand conspiracy with FDA personnel to promote certain vaccines for their own profit. You are quite clearly biased and I don't even think you would deny that at this point.oski003 said:
Please check out the second link. The "quacks" are getting more legitimate. Btw, I have never said no vaccine is better than a mRNA vaccine. We just need safer ones.
https://t.co/FpEuLHtMnU at the 29:32 https://t.co/rp0ORe2g3V
The CDC is continuing to look at this and their independent advisory group is meeting next week to discuss this. As I have said from the start, you are jumping the gun by pretending like you have a decision to make right now about vaccinating your very young children when you won't have that opportunity for at least another 90, at the very earliest and probably more like 150+ days.
According to the CDC, ~300 cases of myocarditis have been reported out of the 20M+ young people who received the COVID vaccine. Most cases are not serious and "the vast majority have fully resolved with rest and supportive care." Myocarditis sounds scary and it can be a serious issue for people who suffer from it, but at this point there is still no reason to believe that the possible/likely/probably (depending on how one feels) risk of myocarditis that has been identified is a reason to pull the vaccine from the market.
Sharing one-sided evidence of scary-sounding conditions without accurate presentation of what we actually know is not in the service of our public health. If you want to take the personal approach (which you clearly haven't) that any risk from the vaccine is too great a risk to bear, than you are well within your personal rights to do so. No one forced you to vaccinate and no one will force your children to do so any time soon. The excessive handwringing over perhaps a few dozen serious cases (some number of which may have happened anyway) across 20M+ vaccine recipients is what I continue to object to. To date we've already had 4K+ cases of MIS-C amongst children who had COVID and 36 deaths. Layer that on top of the myocarditis cases from COVID itself and we can start to evaluate whether the small risk of myocarditis from the vaccine is enough to offset the risks from COVID. You haven't even attempted to put anything in perspective for reasons only you can say.
I trust the CDC and FDA to do the right thing here.
The CDC is evaluating the potential harm of covid vs the potential harm of the vaccine. They are also evaluating the harm of people generally not vaccinating in regards to what information is made known to the public. For example, the current push is to get young folks vaccinated. Therefore, the current message is that the new variants are more dangerous to young people while, at the same time, minimizing data that shows the current vaccines are less effective with the variants.
However, what if alternative vaccines were available?
Why did the US grant EUA to two previously unlicensed new vaccine technologies and no other technologies?
Why does the U.S. have no inactivated vaccines?
Why did the U.S. reject Ocugen (Bharat Biotech's EUA application?
Why did the US delay Inovio's phase 2/3 trial? Why is it still on hold? Why did the U.S. pull their funding? Inovio's trials do not have near the same side effect profile as mRNA vaccines.
Why did the US delay Novavax's phase 3 trial?
Why did Trump/OWS only talk about JnJ and Moderna?
Who ran the private/public covid taskforce?
Who ran OWS and where was he on the board of? Which company was the venture capitalist who funded that company? What venture capitalist is Stephen Hahn now in talks to join?
... Since there are no competitive vaccines in the US to the mRNA vaccines and JnJ, they will always be compared to no vaccine. Anybody who disparages them uses the "anti-vax" playbook. That is my issue. The US chose mRNA and JnJ a long time ago. Yes, they are better than covid run rampant.
By the way, the CDC is silently moving away from the JnJ adenovirus vaccine without making it public.
Also, here are two recent alleged mRNA vaccine caused teenage cardiac arrests/deaths in VAERS.
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=AGE&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19&DIED=Yes&AGES[]=5
1383620 and 1386841
Isn't it strange that China has several inactivated covid vaccines, India has developed one, and the US hasn't?
However, what if alternative vaccines were available?
Why did the US grant EUA to two previously unlicensed new vaccine technologies and no other technologies?
Why does the U.S. have no inactivated vaccines?
Why did the U.S. reject Ocugen (Bharat Biotech's EUA application?
Why did the US delay Inovio's phase 2/3 trial? Why is it still on hold? Why did the U.S. pull their funding? Inovio's trials do not have near the same side effect profile as mRNA vaccines.
Why did the US delay Novavax's phase 3 trial?
Why did Trump/OWS only talk about JnJ and Moderna?
Who ran the private/public covid taskforce?
Who ran OWS and where was he on the board of? Which company was the venture capitalist who funded that company? What venture capitalist is Stephen Hahn now in talks to join?
... Since there are no competitive vaccines in the US to the mRNA vaccines and JnJ, they will always be compared to no vaccine. Anybody who disparages them uses the "anti-vax" playbook. That is my issue. The US chose mRNA and JnJ a long time ago. Yes, they are better than covid run rampant.
By the way, the CDC is silently moving away from the JnJ adenovirus vaccine without making it public.
Also, here are two recent alleged mRNA vaccine caused teenage cardiac arrests/deaths in VAERS.
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=AGE&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19&DIED=Yes&AGES[]=5
1383620 and 1386841
Isn't it strange that China has several inactivated covid vaccines, India has developed one, and the US hasn't?
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
"Why did Trump/OWS only talk about JnJ and Moderna?"
tRump is All In when he is getting his beak wet (e.g. pushing pharmaceuticals that he has a secret investment stake in; manipulation of stock market by tweet that benefits his equities; and secret commissions on arms sales). With tRump you gotta pay to play.
tRump is All In when he is getting his beak wet (e.g. pushing pharmaceuticals that he has a secret investment stake in; manipulation of stock market by tweet that benefits his equities; and secret commissions on arms sales). With tRump you gotta pay to play.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
You still have to pay to play. Trump just makes it more obvious. Trump definitely pushed JnJ. Fauci pushed Moderna.bearister said:
"Why did Trump/OWS only talk about JnJ and Moderna?"
tRump is All In when he is getting his beak wet (e.g. pushing pharmaceuticals that he has a secret investment stake in; manipulation of stock market by tweet that benefits his equities; and secret commissions on arms sales). With tRump you gotta pay to play).
AunBear89 said:
AunBear89:
Looks at facts. Calls them conspiracy theories. Refuses to address questions. Puts head in sand.
That's exactly how a conspiracy theorist would respond.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
oski003 said:
The CDC is evaluating the potential harm of covid vs the potential harm of the vaccine. They are also evaluating the harm of people generally not vaccinating in regards to what information is made known to the public. For example, the current push is to get young folks vaccinated. Therefore, the current message is that the new variants are more dangerous to young people while, at the same time, minimizing data that shows the current vaccines are less effective with the variants.
However, what if alternative vaccines were available?
Why did the US grant EUA to two previously unlicensed new vaccine technologies and no other technologies?
Why does the U.S. have no inactivated vaccines?
Why did the U.S. reject Ocugen (Bharat Biotech's EUA application?
Why did the US delay Inovio's phase 2/3 trial? Why is it still on hold? Why did the U.S. pull their funding? Inovio's trials do not have near the same side effect profile as mRNA vaccines.
Why did the US delay Novavax's phase 3 trial?
Why did Trump/OWS only talk about JnJ and Moderna?
Who ran the private/public covid taskforce?
Who ran OWS and where was he on the board of? Which company was the venture capitalist who funded that company? What venture capitalist is Stephen Hahn now in talks to join?
... Since there are no competitive vaccines in the US to the mRNA vaccines and JnJ, they will always be compared to no vaccine. Anybody who disparages them uses the "anti-vax" playbook. That is my issue. The US chose mRNA and JnJ a long time ago. Yes, they are better than covid run rampant.
By the way, the CDC is silently moving away from the JnJ adenovirus vaccine without making it public.
Also, here are two recent alleged mRNA vaccine caused teenage cardiac arrests/deaths in VAERS.
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=AGE&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19&DIED=Yes&AGES[]=5
1383620 and 1386841
Isn't it strange that China has several inactivated covid vaccines, India has developed one, and the US hasn't?
This stuff is all a bit farfetched and I don't have the time or inclination to debunk everything you say but the Novavax trial was delayed due to manufacturing problems. I didn't realize that was a conspiracy theory too. If you want to give your kids the Chinese vaccine, more power to you. I imagine if we approved Sinovac you would point us here (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/06/18/asia/vaccinated-indonesian-doctors-covid-19-intl-hnk/index.html) and have some other conspiracy theory about why we approved it.
At least you're being open about your motivations and more of the background on your position.
Unit2Sucks said:oski003 said:
The CDC is evaluating the potential harm of covid vs the potential harm of the vaccine. They are also evaluating the harm of people generally not vaccinating in regards to what information is made known to the public. For example, the current push is to get young folks vaccinated. Therefore, the current message is that the new variants are more dangerous to young people while, at the same time, minimizing data that shows the current vaccines are less effective with the variants.
However, what if alternative vaccines were available?
Why did the US grant EUA to two previously unlicensed new vaccine technologies and no other technologies?
Why does the U.S. have no inactivated vaccines?
Why did the U.S. reject Ocugen (Bharat Biotech's EUA application?
Why did the US delay Inovio's phase 2/3 trial? Why is it still on hold? Why did the U.S. pull their funding? Inovio's trials do not have near the same side effect profile as mRNA vaccines.
Why did the US delay Novavax's phase 3 trial?
Why did Trump/OWS only talk about JnJ and Moderna?
Who ran the private/public covid taskforce?
Who ran OWS and where was he on the board of? Which company was the venture capitalist who funded that company? What venture capitalist is Stephen Hahn now in talks to join?
... Since there are no competitive vaccines in the US to the mRNA vaccines and JnJ, they will always be compared to no vaccine. Anybody who disparages them uses the "anti-vax" playbook. That is my issue. The US chose mRNA and JnJ a long time ago. Yes, they are better than covid run rampant.
By the way, the CDC is silently moving away from the JnJ adenovirus vaccine without making it public.
Also, here are two recent alleged mRNA vaccine caused teenage cardiac arrests/deaths in VAERS.
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=AGE&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19&DIED=Yes&AGES[]=5
1383620 and 1386841
Isn't it strange that China has several inactivated covid vaccines, India has developed one, and the US hasn't?
This stuff is all a bit farfetched and I don't have the time or inclination to debunk everything you say but the Novavax trial was delayed due to manufacturing problems. I didn't realize that was a conspiracy theory too. If you want to give your kids the Chinese vaccine, more power to you. I imagine if we approved Sinovac you would point us here (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/06/18/asia/vaccinated-indonesian-doctors-covid-19-intl-hnk/index.html) and have some other conspiracy theory about why we approved it.
At least you're being open about your motivations and more of the background on your position.
The US kicked Novavax out of its current manufacturing partner and gave them and Fujifilm money to build manufacturing in the USA. They then forced Novavax to use doses made in that facility for it's P3, which is something the other EUA candidates weren't required to do. Meanwhile, Pfizer and Moderna needed more supplies to fulfill their over promises to the US. Already having EUA, Pfizer convinced Biden to declare an emergency and divert all supplies to Pfizer and Moderna. Novavax is now further delayed.
Don't get me wrong. Without massive help (like Moderna got), Novavax would have struggled meeting the demands of the US population. However, they were put to the end of the line. I suppose that is better than other vaccines that had lower antibodies in p1 trials who were ignored altogether (except JnJ, who runs the show and rewrote the rules). Because mRNA vaccines were so robust with antibodies, the other vaccines (except for JnJ) also had to be so to be considered moving forward. Safety was a low priority due to the urgency of the pandemic.
AunBear89 said:
That's exactly how a conspiracy theorist would respond.
Btw, if you really want to talk actual conspiracy theories, Stephanie Bancel, the CEO of Moderna, was the CEO of the company that created the Wuhan Lab in China.
oski003 said:AunBear89 said:
That's exactly how a conspiracy theorist would respond.
Btw, if you really want to talk actual conspiracy theories, Stephanie Bancel, the CEO of Moderna, was the CEO of the company that created the Wuhan Lab in China.
Don't leave us hanging.
What precisely is the conspiracy theory that you want to discuss.?
GivemTheAxe said:oski003 said:AunBear89 said:
That's exactly how a conspiracy theorist would respond.
Btw, if you really want to talk actual conspiracy theories, Stephanie Bancel, the CEO of Moderna, was the CEO of the company that created the Wuhan Lab in China.
Don't leave us hanging.
What precisely is the conspiracy theory that you want to discuss.?
It relates to the theory that Fauci authorized gain of function research in Wuhan. The fact that a Western Company led by the now Moderna CEO built the level 3 lab could support this. I don't pay too much attention to this stuff. I don't think anyone from the US had any direct involvement in releasing covid 19.
oski003 said:GivemTheAxe said:oski003 said:AunBear89 said:
That's exactly how a conspiracy theorist would respond.
Btw, if you really want to talk actual conspiracy theories, Stephanie Bancel, the CEO of Moderna, was the CEO of the company that created the Wuhan Lab in China.
Don't leave us hanging.
What precisely is the conspiracy theory that you want to discuss.?
It relates to the theory that Fauci authorized gain of function research in Wuhan. The fact that a Western Company led by the now Moderna CEO built the level 3 lab could support this. I don't pay too much attention to this stuff. I don't think anyone from the US had any direct involvement in releasing covid 19.
Thanks for the info.
I guess these theorists are not very original. They had to rip off the plot of the Resident Evil movies. But with Wuhan taking the place of Raccoon City. The Chinese government taking the place of Umbrella Corporation and COVID taking the place of the T-virus.
Unfortunately there is no person involved who is as good looking as Mila Jovovich.
oski003 said:GivemTheAxe said:oski003 said:AunBear89 said:
That's exactly how a conspiracy theorist would respond.
Btw, if you really want to talk actual conspiracy theories, Stephanie Bancel, the CEO of Moderna, was the CEO of the company that created the Wuhan Lab in China.
Don't leave us hanging.
What precisely is the conspiracy theory that you want to discuss.?
It relates to the theory that Fauci authorized gain of function research in Wuhan. The fact that a Western Company led by the now Moderna CEO built the level 3 lab could support this. I don't pay too much attention to this stuff. I don't think anyone from the US had any direct involvement in releasing covid 19.
The Wuhan lab was funded from many international sources, including the US, because everyone knew that new viruses could come out of China and wanted to support research that might help prevent that. The mere fact that the NIH provided some funding for the lab is also hardly a smoking gun.
I also believe that the US had requirements that their funding would not be used for gain-of-function research, but of course it's hard to say exactly how the money would have been spent by the lab. Again, though, this is all just conjecture at this point. There's no solid evidence.
sycasey said:oski003 said:GivemTheAxe said:oski003 said:AunBear89 said:
That's exactly how a conspiracy theorist would respond.
Btw, if you really want to talk actual conspiracy theories, Stephanie Bancel, the CEO of Moderna, was the CEO of the company that created the Wuhan Lab in China.
Don't leave us hanging.
What precisely is the conspiracy theory that you want to discuss.?
It relates to the theory that Fauci authorized gain of function research in Wuhan. The fact that a Western Company led by the now Moderna CEO built the level 3 lab could support this. I don't pay too much attention to this stuff. I don't think anyone from the US had any direct involvement in releasing covid 19.
The Wuhan lab was funded from many international sources, including the US, because everyone knew that new viruses could come out of China and wanted to support research that might help prevent that. The mere fact that the NIH provided some funding for the lab is also hardly a smoking gun.
I also believe that the US had requirements that their funding would not be used for gain-of-function research, but of course it's hard to say exactly how the money would have been spent by the lab. Again, though, this is all just conjecture at this point. There's no solid evidence.
There was no solid evidence that the virus was transmitted naturally from Wuhan bats to humans either but interestingly, no one got censored or banned for promoting that theory. Bringing up the most plausible theory was previously considered taboo and any discussion was widely suppressed Why do you think?
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
Featured Stories
See All
Mendoza Named ACC Quarterback Of The Week
by Cal Athletics
Bears Slip By Sac State, 83-77
by Jim McGill
The Rodcast: The Greatest Drive Ever?
by Rod Benson
Cal Hosts Stanford In 127th Big Game
by Cal Athletics