Covid retrospective


NeuroTypical
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

For a better explanation I recommend the book “Capitalism and Freedom” by the world acclaimed and Nobel prize winning economist, Milton Friedman

Ironically, his “Free to Choose” was life changing for me. if you want, I can give you a list of many, many conservative economic books that changed my life. 
 

F2C and FA Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” are my two favorites. You should also read “Why I’m not a conservative” by Hayek and anything by Von Mises. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Oh, okay. Now I get it. [...]  I understand the reasoning now. Pfizer is making money, I don’t like why, so I’ll create this reason so I can dislike them and still be in favor of free enterprise.

No, you clearly do not get it, thought I don't understand why not. It's an obvious principle: Don't put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

For example, Anthony Fauci, chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden and outspoken cheerleader for Covid vaccinations, has been receiving royalties from the pharmaceutical companies that produce the vaccines. Fauci did not deny this, but instead insisted that he had no legal obligation to mention or discuss that fact, so he wouldn't. (Fauci later claimed, without proof, that he had actually donated his profits to charity.)

Do you truly not see the inherent conflict of interest and corruption in someone who is financially profiting from a vaccine's usage to work in an official governmental capacity to encourage and, in some cases, require that vaccine's usage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Vort said:

No, you clearly do not get it,

Ever thought that maybe, just maybe, you don’t get it? No, stupid question on my part. Nevermind. 

Fauci said that between 2015 and 2020, the only  royalties he had were on the monoclonal antibodies that his lab created.

https://www.newsweek.com/rand-paul-fauci-spar-over-vaccine-money-1716661?amp=1

 

What royalties are you talking about? These ones?

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the biggest and most destructive misinformation (aka lies) that we have been told is when it is called a Covid "vaccine"  If they were being honest about it they would be calling it the Covid genetic therapy shot that was rushed through testing.
 
Why do they not give correct information (aka be honest)?  Because most people would have understandable concerns about being at the cutting edge of genetic therapy,and not consent to it.
 
But many people do understand how vaccines work (at least in layman's terms).  Vaccines have a long and proven history so much that the majority of those that have concerns about vaccines do not have concerns about the effectiveness of the vaccine, but about the possible side effects (Aka those who suspect a link to Autism), or about getting the wrong bug (aka the effectiveness of the yearly flu shot) or they for whatever reason prefer to take their chances of possibly getting sick vs the possibility of a reaction to the vaccine. None of these "Anti Vaxxers" positions deny the effectiveness of vaccines in general
 
So we get lied to.  We get told it's a "Vaccine" so they can ride on the trust and familiarity we have toward vaccines to get us to consent to genetic therapy under false pretenses instead. In addition anyone that tries to point this out gets labeled "Anti Vaxxer" "Anti Science" and accused of spreading misinformation.  While their massive lies remain unchallenged.
 
It makes no sense to need a "vaccine" after you have already fought off the disease.  You do not need a "vaccine"  "booster" within weeks of an initial shot.  Yet you might need it for genetic therapy treatment, I mean the general public (including me) has no real idea how genetic therapy works... so sure why not.
 
And it is simple Human nature one you know you are being lied to and fed disinformation, to never trust them again.  And to look for reasons for the lie.  Greed/power grab is almost always the reason
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, estradling75 said:
rushed through testing.

I just like to point out at times like these, that I participated in the phase III trial for Moderna.  Phase 1 was (I believe) done on animals.  Phase 2 was done on the healthy fit young humans - tens of thousands of volunteers got the shots (of varying volume, or placebos), and studied for a while.  Phase 3 was done on the general public - including old people, people with other health issues, even people with COVID co-morbidities. Again, me and 30,000 other volunteers, of varying ages and health, got shots (or placebos), and then had recurring blood tests, and every cough and hiccup reported and studied.  Pregnant or nursing women were excluded, and no testing on kiddos until March '21.

My first shot was in August 2020.   December 2020 had the FDA concluding things about safety and effectiveness.  Canada, Israel, Singapore, then the WHO, Japan, India, Malaysia, Europe, Australia all approved things shortly after. 99% of the organizations and nations who studied the thing, all agreed with the approval and release.  

They released it to the public in December.  Since supplies were limited, they started with our elders in nursing homes - those at highest risk.  These folks accounted for like 80% of the covid deaths, so they got shots first.

This is what "rushed through testing" looks like.  5-6 months of testing and data gathering on 30k volunteers.  And yes, the word "rushed" applies - usually it takes years.  

Anyway, perspective is important.  It's good to understand what "rushed through testing" looks like.

Carry on folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, LDSGator said:
23 hours ago, Vort said:

No, you clearly do not get it,

Ever thought that maybe, just maybe, you don’t get it?

Tell you what, Gator. I will explain, carefully and in great detail, what I believe you don't understand and why I believe you don't understand it, using what you yourself have written in this conversation. Feel free to respond and point out any errors you might see.

Then you explain, carefully and in great detail, what you believe I don't understand and why you believe I don't understand it, using what I myself have written in this conversation. I in turn will feel free to point out any errors I might see.

That way, we will have carefully and in great detail communicated what we think and why we think it. At that point, we can compare notes, review what each of us has said, and then actually have an informed and factual discussion about this issue.

Deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I just like to point out at times like these, that I participated in the phase III trial for Moderna.  Phase 1 was (I believe) done on animals.  Phase 2 was done on the healthy fit young humans - tens of thousands of volunteers got the shots (of varying volume, or placebos), and studied for a while.  Phase 3 was done on the general public - including old people, people with other health issues, even people with COVID co-morbidities. Again, me and 30,000 other volunteers, of varying ages and health, got shots (or placebos), and then had recurring blood tests, and every cough and hiccup reported and studied.  Pregnant or nursing women were excluded, and no testing on kiddos until March '21.

My first shot was in August 2020.   December 2020 had the FDA concluding things about safety and effectiveness.  Canada, Israel, Singapore, then the WHO, Japan, India, Malaysia, Europe, Australia all approved things shortly after. 99% of the organizations and nations who studied the thing, all agreed with the approval and release.  

They released it to the public in December.  Since supplies were limited, they started with our elders in nursing homes - those at highest risk.  These folks accounted for like 80% of the covid deaths, so they got shots first.

This is what "rushed through testing" looks like.  5-6 months of testing and data gathering on 30k volunteers.  And yes, the word "rushed" applies - usually it takes years.  

Anyway, perspective is important.  It's good to understand what "rushed through testing" looks like.

Carry on folks.

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients-drugs/fdas-drug-review-process-continued

Testing on animals is supposed to be initial research phase ("pre-clinical" stage).  Phase I is with a small sample of humans. Phase II and Phase III are on a greater number of humans and more in-depth studies.  Then when all the paper work is done, they take 6 months to review the data and procedures used in testing to ensure everything is on the up and up.

The "rushing" through was that the drug was approved for "emergency use" prior to Phase III being complete.  If I remember correctly, they were still closing up Phase II as the shutdowns began.  But they were approved for use.

That's rushing it.

Emergency Use authorization: Earlier than Nov 2020.  I personally remember that emergency use was authorized during the summer.  But I now find different websites with different dates:

https://www.verywellhealth.com/emergency-use-authorization-vs-approval-5092864

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained

Maybe I remember wrong.  But why do these sites have different dates?  Notice that the FDA page only has a date of the update.  It doesn't say when it was first authorized.

 

Full approval: Feb 2022

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/full-fda-approval-of-a-covid-19-vaccine-what-you-should-know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2023 at 10:57 AM, Traveler said:

One of the problems is that proper terms are not being used.    Technically the COVID shot is not a vaccine but rather gene mRNA therapy. 

You're drawing a distinction with no real difference.  It behaves the same way and does essentially the same function.  To call it "gene mRNA therapy" is a greater misnomer than a traditional vaccine.

For lack of a better term, it is perfectly fine to call it a vaccine.

On 1/28/2023 at 10:57 AM, Traveler said:

The therapy is technically experimental.  In an emergency of a global pandemic – I believe the gene mRNA therapy is genius but let’s be clear it is NOT a COVID cure once a person has COVID.

Here we agree.  Yes, it is experimental.  And that is why I'm concerned why it was allowed to be used prior to full approval.

Yes. Yes.  Emergencies.  But when some things are rushed because of emergencies, things get missed.  And if an error is as monumental  and as public as this vaccine would tend to be, it is all too tempting for people to cover up the mistakes and side-effects as outliers.

And as you said, it is NOT a cure.  And I have yet to see any logical scientific explanation as to why my children were required to have a vaccine after they had already had the disease.

I also have yet to hear why anyone required the vaccine for new variants that it was not designed for.  They never updated the mRNA for the new variants.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/fda-withdraws-authorization-covid-drug-effective-new-variants/story?id=96715718

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2023 at 12:53 PM, NeuroTypical said:

So, how'd y'all do over the last 3 years?  Life getting back to normal?  Did you successfully resist the lack of normal in the first place?  Things forever different?

Whelp, one thing I'm learning, is that the topic is still a sore spot for many, emotions continue to run high, and folks who see things differently continue to find ways to make it personal.  (Not talking about you Carb.)

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Whelp, one thing I'm learning, is that the topic is still a sore spot for many, emotions continue to run high, and folks who see things differently continue to find ways to make it personal.  (Not talking about you Carb.)

Yes, I'd agree. That's probably a valid assessment.  Your sentiments are well received.

And thank you for understanding.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You're drawing a distinction with no real difference.  It behaves the same way and does essentially the same function.  To call it "gene mRNA therapy" is a greater misnomer than a traditional vaccine.

For lack of a better term, it is perfectly fine to call it a vaccine.

.....

It was explained to me that a vaccine employs the method of introducing a weakened version of the virus to assist the immune system in “learning” how to disable a virus without the risk of a introducing a capable virus.  Gene therapy is a method of genetically alternating the host to reproduce the message RNA that is created in a host that was immune to the virus.

Though I am not an expert concerning how a virus operates –  but it is obvious to me that the gene therapy method skips the natural immune system step of T-cell involvement that then triggers cells to “broadcast” the needed mRNA proteins.   What little I understand of the immune system it seems logical that the “vaccine” method of involving T-cells is more likely to be effective against variants.   And that the gene therapy method would produce the exact same mRNA for all variants. 

It also seems to me that for a virus that kills by cytokine storm, that the more mRNA variations of proteins that are produced to combat each new versions of the vaccine makes the host more vulnerable cytokine storm – but this is my own logic.  I would like to see data from trials - but it is my understanding that the virus has not been around long enough - but if someone wants to test this on themselves - I do not think it is up to me prevent such expermentation. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Traveler said:

Gene therapy is a method of genetically alternating the host to reproduce the message RNA that is created in a host that was immune to the virus.

Hi Traveler, I'd like to keep this thread related to covid and the covid vaccines.  If you wish to talk about gene therapy, please start a new thread, so as to not muddle that topic with this one.   Since they have nothing to do with each other.

Because:

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-covid-vaccines-gene-therapy-806280914802

https://www.goodrx.com/health-topic/vaccines/are-mrna-vaccines-gene-therapy

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34271959/

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-mrna-gene-idUSL1N2PH16N

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Traveler said:

It was explained to me that a vaccine employs the method of introducing a weakened version of the virus to assist the immune system in “learning” how to disable a virus without the risk of a introducing a capable virus.

That is correct.

14 hours ago, Traveler said:

Gene therapy is a method of genetically alternating the host to reproduce the message RNA that is created in a host that was immune to the virus.

I don't know if you've really thought through what "genetically altering the host" means.  This is a deep topic that could take pages to explain. 

Contrary to some alarmists rhetoric, the mRNA vaccine is NOT "gene therapy".

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/mrnavaccines/

Compare a virus' effects on the immune system vs the mRNA vaccine's effect on the immune system.

  • A virus injects itself into a cell.  Then it releases a certain protein that is harmful to the body.  The immune system responds.
  • The mRNA vaccine is a copy of some proteins that the virus generates.  The immune system responds.
  • From that point on, the process is identical.

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellular-gene-therapy-products/what-gene-therapy

That difference is that gene therapy means that the genes that are affected are the actual "operating cells" (my term for clarity) of the body.  These are the cells that are merely the differentiated copies of the original cell formed when the egg and sperm united.  That set of genes are being altered all the time in tiny quantities by a variety of effects.  Both genetics and epigenetics may be involved in such changes in every human being.

The mRNA vaccine differs in that it does not have any affect on our operating cells.  But it does work with genetics in that the "stored" nucleotide sequences are kept in the body's lymph nodes.  But this is VERY different from actual gene therapy.

So, if you think of this as "gene therapy", then you may as well say that our immune system is performing gene therapy all the time.

14 hours ago, Traveler said:

Though I am not an expert concerning how a virus operates –  but it is obvious to me that the gene therapy method skips the natural immune system step of T-cell involvement that then triggers cells to “broadcast” the needed mRNA proteins.

That would be incorrect.  You may be confusing this technology with CAR T-Cell Therapy.  Two different things.

14 hours ago, Traveler said:

What little I understand of the immune system it seems logical that the “vaccine” method of involving T-cells is more likely to be effective against variants.   And that the gene therapy method would produce the exact same mRNA for all variants. 

Yes, that is the weakness of the mRNA vaccine.  It only carries a few of the overall proteins that the virus can produce.  Thus the immune system is triggered again only when those few proteins are found in the body again.  (From what I understand, the Pfizer vaccine only protects against three proteins).

A natural immunity (having contracted the virus naturally) means that the lymph nodes have a record of many more proteins.  So, it is triggered whenever ANY of those proteins (From the sources I've read, this generates immunity for 26 proteins).

There are some technical arguments that can be made (and have been made) about the efficacy of the three proteins chosen.  And they are, indeed, good arguments.  But in practical application, they don't seem to work.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/fda-withdraws-authorization-covid-drug-effective-new-variants/story?id=96715718

14 hours ago, Traveler said:

It also seems to me that for a virus that kills by cytokine storm, that the more mRNA variations of proteins that are produced to combat each new versions of the vaccine makes the host more vulnerable cytokine storm – but this is my own logic.  I would like to see data from trials - but it is my understanding that the virus has not been around long enough - but if someone wants to test this on themselves - I do not think it is up to me prevent such expermentation. 

I don't know where you get that from.  Cytokine storm is a phenomenon that periodically happens from a variety of triggers. It is uncommon (but still noticeable statistically) with ANY vaccine.  Some people (like me and my son) are much more prone to having such reactions from vaccines than others (like the rest of my family).

But I have heard of no additional risk of CS from the mRNA vaccine than from traditional vaccines.  But I haven't heard any reliable sources say there isn't additional risk either (No, I don't consider Fauci a reliable source).  It seems that it hasn't been commented on.  If you know of a source that does indicate such, I'd like to see it.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Carborendum   

Gene therapy is a medical field which focuses on the scientific (artificial) genetic modification of cells to produce a therapeutic effect or the treatment of disease.  It cannot be gene therapy, by definition, if it is a natural process of healthy humans.  It is only gene therapy when it is artificially produced.   The mRNA procedure produced as a lab experiment meets the criteria of gene therapy and because there is no part of a virus involved, by definition, it is not a vaccine.  

I realize that precise terms carry connotations that can affect public impressions – never the less it is political pandering and not truth and honesty (seems to me) that seems to be driving the narrative concerning COVID.

I will respond to your previous post in more detail later.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Gene therapy is a medical field which focuses on the scientific (artificial) genetic modification of cells to produce a therapeutic effect or the treatment of disease.

That is a very vague definition of the field of practice, not of any specific techniques.  And I would like to see the source from which you generated that.  I gave you my sources (check the links).  I'd appreciate seeing yours.

Gene therapy is specifically injecting or altering DNA.  The mRNA therapy does not alter the DNA of our bodies, nor does it introduce DNA into our bodies.

There are some RNA therapies that do affect our DNA.  But this mRNA vaccine technology does not.  At least I haven't read any source which points out the process by which that happens.  They just make the claim and expect it to be believed.

So, if you want me to believe that, explain the process by which it happens.  I'll look it up.  And if it does have a direct causal effect, then I'll concede this point.  But simply making such a claim without even understanding the difference is irresponsible.

34 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It cannot be gene therapy, by definition, if it is a natural process of healthy humans.  It is only gene therapy when it is artificially produced. 

So, injecting a weakened virus with a bunch of chemical preservatives and other items into your body is not artificial?  It is natural?  OK.  Thanks for clearing that up.

34 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 The mRNA procedure produced as a lab experiment meets the criteria of gene therapy and because there is no part of a virus involved, by definition, it is not a vaccine.  

Actually, a "part" of a virus is exactly what these mRNA vaccines are.  And that is what makes it work.

34 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I realize that precise terms carry connotations that can affect public impressions –

The terms you are using are not precise.  Instead, they are quite imprecise and make it impossible to really verify anything.

The only significant difference is that the effect on the body.  It does NOT alter the DNA in our bodies, nor does it inject DNA into our bodies. Ironically, traditional vaccines DO inject DNA into our bodies.

34 minutes ago, Traveler said:

never the less it is political pandering and not truth and honesty (seems to me) that seems to be driving the narrative concerning COVID.

We can certainly agree on that.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long winded diatribe incoming...

I can say in academia, overall, there is a GREAT AMOUNT of disdain for anti-vaxxers.

The biggest reason I can tell is that they (anti-vaxxers) are normally ALSO ANTI-SCIENCE. 

If these people had controlled the way science was, we'd still be without electricity today...or at least that's the sentiment on how STRONGLY these people reject science and scientists.

No matter how strongly many of the anti-vaxxers say they are using science or friendly to scientists, it seems to most OF THE ACTUAL SCIENTISTS that these people love are the quacks, the phonies, and those that would tar and feather actual science and scientists.

The PROBLEM they see is that many of these anti-vaxxers are also fanatically religious.  Because they are fanatically religious the idea is that these individuals see everything through the lens of religion and religious faith.  They think that science is actually a RELIGION rather than something else.  Thus, everything they disagree with is because they feel it is reliant on it being discovered purely via faith and belief rather than a basis on anything else.

If we apply this to something such as evolution, we could say that a fanatical religious anti-vaxxer would say that the only evidence for evolution is because scientists want to believe in it and thus tailor everything they say to support it, sort of like trying to use the Bible to justify whatever you want.  Deep down in their hearts they don't believe there are any experiments or hard facts that are used, it really just boils down to faith and belief in something.  Thus, the science behind evolution is simply a religion, not anything dealing with facts, evidence, experiments, data, or anything else.  In their eyes science STARTS with what it wants to be, and then builds everything else up to support it.

Why is this important?

Because a LOT of the arguments (especially some in this thread) are ignoring what the scientists and science have been stating from the very start.

It was already known there was and could be problems with the vaccine.  A prime example is Myocarditis.  They had discovered that the vaccine may be responsible for causing this in individuals rather early.  In this, the question could be, if this could cause such a thing...why continue it?

The idea is that (not the actual numbers) if it caused .01% of those receiving the vaccine to have this reaction, it was still better than if they got the illness. 

This would mean if 10 million got the vaccine, you could possibly have 1000 people develop myocarditis.  That can seem like a large number to some.  You get 100 million to get the vaccine that's 10,000 people. 

When compared to Covid-19 which may have a 1% chance, that means you only have 10,000 people compared to 100,000 people. 

(funny enough, this logic evades anti-vaxxers.  So yes, some may have side-effect, but the numbers would be worse if people simply didn't GET the vaccine, and unsurprisingly, this seems to be backed up by data when comparing those who got vaccinated vs. those who have not been vaccinated over the past few years). 

THIS is why they continued with the vaccine, because the percentage that could get it were less than those that WOULD get it the course of allowing the illness to affect people.

That said, they were still concerned.  With the older groups (such as my age group) this was seen as beneficial because our chances of myocarditis were higher than the general population.  With young men some nations put out a caution because the chance of the vaccine causing this trouble could actually be HIGHER than what the disease seemed to cause at the time.

Now, some of this was seen to not turn out among youth in some of the studies done (and still continuing, but the data returns from the past year don't seem to suggest the chances of myocarditis was as high as originally thought from the vaccine) that have been ongoing.  This is just one facet of the misunderstanding people have of science though.

People think of science as religion.  It is black and white.  You are either good or you are not.  With physics and the hard sciences this is more true, but not absolute.  With softer sciences such as biology this is never true.  Things are never black and white.  With vaccines, you are never 100% protected or safe.  It offers a better chance, but it is never absolute.

Even with the shingles vaccine you can still get shingles.  You can still get sick.  There are exceptions and people who react differently than what is generally seen. 

In the same way the Covid-19 vaccine was never going to be 100% planned or 100% perfect protection.  Scientists never claimed it would be.  It was to lessen the impact of Covid-19 overall, give people a better chance of surviving Covid-19, and if we got REALLY lucky (which would have meant enough acceptance of the vaccine so that we could develop herd immunity simply from that and quickly enough) maybe even wipe it out (didn't happen, luckily we didn't have these types of anti-vaxxers when I was young or they would have polio epidemics today as an endemic illness...people like to talk trash about Boomers, but at least we and our parents respected science enough not to be ridiculous anti-vaxxers).

The Polio vaccine itself wasn't 100% either.  The difference is that people accepted the science and scientists behind it enough that they were willing to unify as a society to take the vaccines.  It had a high enough percentage where it DID work that we got herd immunity (at least for now, I hear it is starting to make a come back...which if you ever knew about polio...is actually horrific).

Science is never 100% or black and white.  This is why science advances, because it isn't `100% solved' and those in science don't just settle that they know everything.  It is constantly changing and evolving.   

This seems to be ignored by many.  It is ignored on both sides actually, but overwhelmingly by the anti-vaxxers.

Some say that when a crowd or group of people try to accuse one side of something, many times they are just describing themselves.  Anti-vaxxers seem to already have their opinion formed.  They are simply looking to find things to support their "religious" fanaticism applied towards science.  Instead of listening to the majority of scientists out there, they find offshoots (and sometimes these are disgraced offshoots within the scientific community) and then highilght these individuals. 

This is why it drives academia crazy and why they don't like the anti-vaxxer crowd.  The anti-vaxxer crowd isn't actually listening to the scientists or researchers.  They are taking fringe individuals or fringe thoughts on the subject and promoting them over the entirety of the rest of academia.

(for better understanding, it would be if you had 1000 companies that produced electricity.  They had safe electricity that was reliable.  Instead of buying their electricity people turned to the ONE person who tried to make electricity and occasionally succeeded, but it could cause forest fires because of unsafe practices, and would go out very often.  Worse, they would also turn to the individual who said they could make electricity, but never had produced a single watt of it.  They put those two as the ones to buy electricity from above the 1000 other companies out there.  It seems wierd and insane, but for some reason a big group of people would prefer either no electricity or unsafe electricty to having safe, reliable electricty.  That doesn't mean that there will NEVER be an electrical outage from those 1000 companies, or that nothing will go wrong, but overall they are far more reliable and safe than the two others that many people seem to want to choose). 

As I said at the start, most of academia that I know seem to have a great disdain for anti-vaxxers.  They see anti-vaxxers as anti-science and wanting to tear down science and it's advances rather than actually benefit or even support science and scientists. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JohnsonJones, I have no direct input on vaccinations, and despite having some wariness about the Covid vaccines, specifically, I am pro vaccine...so this question isn't really a counter -- just a related curiosity:

How do you account for something like this:

https://www.ama-assn.org/about/leadership/everyone-deserves-quality-medical-care-delivered-without-bias

Particularly statements such as... "Despite widespread support from major medical associations for gender-affirming care as the accepted standard,..." and "Our AMA strongly opposes these types of discriminatory actions as dangerous government intrusions into the practice of medicine."

I mean... apparently according to "science" anyone who considers gender affirming care wrong falls into the same category as you're placing anti-vaxxers. The AMA seems fully behind it. We religious fanatics need to trust the scientists/doctors, right?

Like I said, I'm not standing up, full-stop, for anti-vaxxers. I find their positions moderately nutty, overall. But I find myself in, pretty much, exactly the same position as they are when it comes to gender issues.

Makes me kind of think we're moving into an age where, indeed, science IS a religion. Well...really politics is...and the science is being corrupted by the politics. It sure feels that way with many things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@JohnsonJones, I have no direct input on vaccinations, and despite having some wariness about the Covid vaccines, specifically, I am pro vaccine...so this question isn't really a counter -- just a related curiosity:

How do you account for something like this:

https://www.ama-assn.org/about/leadership/everyone-deserves-quality-medical-care-delivered-without-bias

Particularly statements such as... "Despite widespread support from major medical associations for gender-affirming care as the accepted standard,..." and "Our AMA strongly opposes these types of discriminatory actions as dangerous government intrusions into the practice of medicine."

I mean... apparently according to "science" anyone who considers gender affirming care wrong falls into the same category as you're placing anti-vaxxers. The AMA seems fully behind it. We religious fanatics need to trust the scientists/doctors, right?

Like I said, I'm not standing up, full-stop, for anti-vaxxers. I find their positions moderately nutty, overall. But I find myself in, pretty much, exactly the same position as they are when it comes to gender issues.

Makes me kind of think we're moving into an age where, indeed, science IS a religion. Well...really politics is...and the science is being corrupted by the politics. It sure feels that way with many things.

I think it is a tough question.  It is even tougher because on this particular subject, I admit, I AM RELIGIOUSLY influenced.  I'd say I am actually HEAVILY religiously influenced.

Because of this, I am AGAINST a LOT of what the society is trying to push on Minors.  I read an article recently on Utah (I think Utah just passed a law or something if I recall right) where a woman who had transitioned to being a man had transitioned back.  In the article it noted something to the effect that the percentage of youth who now see themselves as trans has shot up by over 4000% of what it was.  This is massive.  The individual noted that this couldn't just be a natural thing happening, but more of a fad or social pressures.  The individual also noted how they had transitioned and then tried to transition back and had found very little support.

There are many things I dislike about Rick DeSantis, but one thing I agree with him on is his actions to protect children against these types of social pressures and troubles.  I ALSO ADMIT this is due to my OWN religious bias.

As for the article itself, it appears to be logically solid.  If someone feels supported in whatever choices they make (in general), they will feel more confident and happier overall.  Those who are not supported tend to have a worse temperament overall.  It makes sense than that those who are trying to transition or want to would have better outcomes if they are supported.  It makes sense that if a MINOR really is a transgendered type individual, that if they can prevent the onset of puberty and then have it reset to whatever gender they wish, they could appear more as that gender later on and have a higher sense that they fit in.  The article makes sense to me. 

I would agree that everyone deserves quality medical care.  The problems I have with the conclusion in the article do NOT stem from anything scientific (and perhaps that means I am also somewhat of that fanatical religious right), but from my own religious convictions.  I do not feel this is the type of care we should ALSO apply towards minors, though scientifically evidence seems to point that doing so may actually be beneficial. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, more from the Veritas video:  Apparently this Pfizer Director of R&D admits that teh vaccine causes some sort of irregularity with menstrual cycles.  Is this listed in the list of possible side effects for full disclosure?  Did Congress or State legislators consider this when approving and mandating?

What is most striking about this is the loop-de-loupes that leftist journalists are depicting to try explaining this away.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2023/01/28/no-project-veritas-video-doesnt-prove-pfizer-is-mutating-covid-19-who-is-jordon-trishton-walker/?sh=2f4f501a623d

https://www.newsweek.com/project-veritas-covid-mutations-pfizer-fact-check-1776845

I'm particularly disappointed with Forbes since they tend to me more centrist than other sources.

1. They claim that this guy isn't even employed at Pfizer.
2.They claim this guy didn't even claim to be doing gain-of-function research.

Only to have Pfizer release their confession/denial, which was crazy.

It's antics like this that make me wonder: If there's nothing wrong with it, why are they going to such lengths to hide it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here is a pretty fair commentary on this video.  This analyst is being very cautious about what he's willing to believe and what has yet to be proven.

This is an example of showing an open mind while maintaining skepticism.  Kudos to both of these journalists.  They may not have the answers yet.  But at least they are asking the right questions.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2023 at 9:23 AM, Carborendum said:

That is a very vague definition of the field of practice, not of any specific techniques.  And I would like to see the source from which you generated that.  I gave you my sources (check the links).  I'd appreciate seeing yours.

Gene therapy is specifically injecting or altering DNA.  The mRNA therapy does not alter the DNA of our bodies, nor does it introduce DNA into our bodies.

There are some RNA therapies that do affect our DNA.  But this mRNA vaccine technology does not.  At least I haven't read any source which points out the process by which that happens.  They just make the claim and expect it to be believed.

So, if you want me to believe that, explain the process by which it happens.  I'll look it up.  And if it does have a direct causal effect, then I'll concede this point.  But simply making such a claim without even understanding the difference is irresponsible.

So, injecting a weakened virus with a bunch of chemical preservatives and other items into your body is not artificial?  It is natural?  OK.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Actually, a "part" of a virus is exactly what these mRNA vaccines are.  And that is what makes it work.

The terms you are using are not precise.  Instead, they are quite imprecise and make it impossible to really verify anything.

The only significant difference is that the effect on the body.  It does NOT alter the DNA in our bodies, nor does it inject DNA into our bodies. Ironically, traditional vaccines DO inject DNA into our bodies.

We can certainly agree on that.

If we do a Google search with "is mrna gene therapy" there will be a lot of interesting links.  When I enter this search I get a definition of gene therapy from Wikipedia on the right hand side – it looks a lot like the definition I used.  One of the links that comes up is to Creative Biolabs https://mrna.creative-biolabs.com/mrna-for-gene-therapy.htm?msclkid=5d9b8f7156db19b6c5abec907c622dad&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=ZJK-mRNA-Service-20201231&utm_term=%2Bgene%20therapy%20%2BmRNA&utm_content=1-6-2%20mRNA%20for%20Gene%20Therapy

 

This link says something interesting: “Furthermore, many reporters have revealed that mRNA-based gene therapy can be achieved at different levels, such as cell level, exosome level, and molecular-level.”

Like you have indicated, the term gene therapy covers a very large range of what is considered as gene therapy.

As far as I have determined the only treatment for viral infections using mRNA technology approved by the FDA is COVID and this was done under the declaration of a national emergency – which means that if a stated national emergency is removed the approval for the vaccine must also be removed until all the clinical trials required by law are completed – at least that is my understanding.

It is also interesting to me that we can find a lot of advertising on TV for all kinds of drugs that are approved by the FDA but there are no drugs approved for COVID except certain treatments authorized “through the FDA’s Expanded Access Program, or under an Emergency Use Authorization.  Official FDA link: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/understanding-regulatory-terminology-potential-preventions-and-treatments-covid-19

 

What I do not understand is why the FDA would approve a drug for Lupus and declare it “safe” for decades but say it is unsafe for COVID???  Sorry I have no link for this – only what I have been told by someone with Lupus.  This because there is a drug common to Lupus that president Trump used when he was infected with COVID.  It would be most interesting to me if there was a study that targeted Lupus patient demographics during the COVID pandemic.  This information should already exist – all that should be needed is to have the information categorized and published.

Another question that I have – is since the mRNA technology approved for COVID is only because of a declared national emergency – why was there a mandate for the “vaccine(s)” beyond those known to be at risk of COVID???

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Traveler said:

If we do a Google search with "is mrna gene therapy" there will be a lot of interesting links. 

No doubt, I'm sure.

15 minutes ago, Traveler said:

When I enter this search I get a definition of gene therapy from Wikipedia on the right hand side – it looks a lot like the definition I used. 

Please be more specific.  I read it.  It doesn't have any description/definition that would apply to the mRNA vaccine.   What sentence or characteristic are you referring to?

15 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I looked.  It doesn't say what you think it does.

15 minutes ago, Traveler said:

This link says something interesting: “Furthermore, many reporters have revealed that mRNA-based gene therapy can be achieved at different levels, such as cell level, exosome level, and molecular-level.”

I read that as well.  So far, not seeing how the mRNA vaccine fits the bill.

15 minutes ago, Traveler said:

As far as I have determined the only treatment for viral infections using mRNA technology approved by the FDA is COVID and this was done under the declaration of a national emergency – which means that if a stated national emergency is removed the approval for the vaccine must also be removed until all the clinical trials required by law are completed – at least that is my understanding.

I agree.  And I found that to be quite suspicious, myself, especially when considering that the traditional vaccine by J&J at the very least utilized technology that had been tried and tested for 100 years.

15 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It is also interesting to me that we can find a lot of advertising on TV for all kinds of drugs that are approved by the FDA but there are no drugs approved for COVID except certain treatments authorized “through the FDA’s Expanded Access Program, or under an Emergency Use Authorization.  Official FDA link: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/understanding-regulatory-terminology-potential-preventions-and-treatments-covid-19

No argument there.  I'm on your side on that one.

15 minutes ago, Traveler said:

What I do not understand is why the FDA would approve a drug for Lupus and declare it “safe” for decades but say it is unsafe for COVID???  Sorry I have no link for this – only what I have been told by someone with Lupus.  This because there is a drug common to Lupus that president Trump used when he was infected with COVID.  It would be most interesting to me if there was a study that targeted Lupus patient demographics during the COVID pandemic.  This information should already exist – all that should be needed is to have the information categorized and published.

Another question that I have – is since the mRNA technology approved for COVID is only because of a declared national emergency – why was there a mandate for the “vaccine(s)” beyond those known to be at risk of COVID???

 

The Traveler

OK, you're muddying the water. I agree with these suspicions.  I've voiced them myself.  That's why I even have questions about it all in the first place.

I still don't see where anything says that this specific mRNA technology THAT IS USED WITH THE PFIZER COVID VACCINE = "gene therapy."

I didn't see anything on the Wiki page nor the Creative Biolabs page that indicates that the Pfizer vaccine fits the bill.  Maybe you don't know how the vaccine works.

Are you familiar with the term "spike proteins"?

Traveler, I'm kinda getting tired of asking the same questions and not getting any response to the questions.  You provide links, and I find out that they do not say what you seem to think they say.  If you don't have anything more than dead end links that don't support your position, then I think I'm done.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No doubt, I'm sure.

Please be more specific.  I read it.  It doesn't have any description/definition that would apply to the mRNA vaccine.   What sentence or characteristic are you referring to?

I looked.  It doesn't say what you think it does.

I read that as well.  So far, not seeing how the mRNA vaccine fits the bill.

I agree.  And I found that to be quite suspicious, myself, especially when considering that the traditional vaccine by J&J at the very least utilized technology that had been tried and tested for 100 years.

No argument there.  I'm on your side on that one.

OK, you're muddying the water. I agree with these suspicions.  I've voiced them myself.  That's why I even have questions about it all in the first place.

I still don't see where anything says that this specific mRNA technology THAT IS USED WITH THE PFIZER COVID VACCINE = "gene therapy."

I didn't see anything on the Wiki page nor the Creative Biolabs page that indicates that the Pfizer vaccine fits the bill.  Maybe you don't know how the vaccine works.

Are you familiar with the term "spike proteins"?

Traveler, I'm kinda getting tired of asking the same questions and not getting any response to the questions.  You provide links, and I find out that they do not say what you seem to think they say.  If you don't have anything more than dead end links that don't support your position, then I think I'm done.

It is my understanding that spike proteins are the proteins that a virus uses to invade a human cell (or any living cell).  I admit that this is science that is not my expertise.  

Perhaps I am missing something – do any of your links say specifically and indicate that none of the mRNA vaccines utilize any technologies derived from mRNA gene therapy research?  That the two are in no way related?  That is the understanding that I am getting from you.  Is there a difference between mRNA gene therapy – which according to my understanding never alters cell DNA - and the COVID vaccines?  Why are the two things two totally different unrelated things?  

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share