forcry

>your holy CDC and WHO high priests who live in the pockets of big pharma.

Even you are wrong. Because they are not in the pockets, but they are the big pharma. They are the marketing arms of big pharma that are just a much more convincing version of the person in a lab coat in a toothpaste commercial. They just appear to do enough good stuff to not blow their cover, just like an undercover cop might go along with the baddies just enough to not blow their cover.

So if you think CDC/WHO can be "fixed" by changing the funding, you would be very wrong.

Is there some evidence to show that people are given RNA tests in the same manner irrespective of vaccination status.

I have seen some articles that put forword the "issue" of "needlessly" testing vaccinated people...

Ask the employer to take liability for any adverse effects that you might suffer and see if changes anything.

I wonder why insurance companies are not offering any offers when coming to vaccine injuries. It seems that it would be a very profitable enterprise when there are so many people who are worried about adverse effects and when "science" says that the vaccines are "overwhelmingly safe". People should be willing to pay large premiums for it, right?

If someone ask you to take it "for the community" show them this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxqC9SiRh8 and ask them about these people who took the risk "for the community" and ask them what the community is doing to help them in return..

>Simpson’s paradox explains the risks of comparing data without taking all variables into account

Unless of course, when you are counting covid-deaths.

>Before the vaccine program started there were ~4000 deaths per day in the US, now there are ~100. Clearly it is very effective at reducing death.

Changing the way you categorise death can do wonders..

> Q Can you talk about your concerns about deaths being misreported by coronavirus because of either testing or standards for how they’re characterized?

> DR. BIRX: So, I think, in this country, we’ve taken a very liberal approach to mortality, and I think the reporting here has been pretty straightforward over the last five to six weeks. Prior to that, when there wasn’t testing in January and February, that’s a very different situation and unknown. There are other countries that if you had a pre-existing condition and let’s say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem — some countries are recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death. Right now, we’re still recording it, and we’ll — I mean, the great thing about having forms that come in and a form that has the ability to mark it as COVID-19 infection — the intent is, right now, that those — if someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that as a COVID-19 death.

Now, imagine if, after vaccine rollout, we counts those deaths as cause by a heart condition. Boom. Drop in covid deaths! Vaccines worked! Hail pharma!

>To save itself, WHO will have to forgo the easy path of private funding and appeasing the rich. It will have to return to democracy, to advocacy for the mass populations it was designed to serve

I don't think private funding is the problem, the problem is centralisation of power. So to save itself WHO should denounce its power to issue medical guidelines for the world.

>It's a shame that the discourse around this drug has been horribly mangled by conspiracy theorists..

Do you think companies that are developing vaccines and other costly treatments for Covid does not have an incentive to discredit Ivermectin?

If you say, yes they have an incentive, but there is no evidence that they are doing so, then it becomes quite subjective. If you think it is not possible for the researchers and media to work towards a narrative, then of course that is an outrageous possibility, but if you think that is possible, then not so much so..

True. Got confused.

>the largest excess mortality in our dataset was observed in the United States

This is not very surprising given the following practice..

> Q Can you talk about your concerns about deaths being misreported by coronavirus because of either testing or standards for how they’re characterized?

> DR. BIRX: So, I think, in this country, we’ve taken a very liberal approach to mortality, and I think the reporting here has been pretty straightforward over the last five to six weeks. Prior to that, when there wasn’t testing in January and February, that’s a very different situation and unknown. There are other countries that if you had a pre-existing condition and let’s say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem — some countries are recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death. Right now, we’re still recording it, and we’ll — I mean, the great thing about having forms that come in and a form that has the ability to mark it as COVID-19 infection — the intent is, right now, that those — if someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that as a COVID-19 death.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210119100429/https://www.white...

> The indicated biological mechanism of IVM, competitive binding with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, is likely non-epitope specific, possibly yielding full efficacy against emerging viral mutant strains.

> Three mutations in the spike protein, viz. RSYLTPGD246-253N, 260 L452Q, and F490S help Lambda resist antibody neutralisation, while two additional mutations, T76I and L452Q, make it highly infectious, the researchers found.

No problem. This article has the solution...

>The answer, if immune evasion does become a bigger problem, is the development of next generation COVID-19 vaccines

https://vaxopedia.org/2021/03/14/who-is-geert-vanden-bossche...

>That said, I can't seem to find any credentials or publications by the author of this piece "Dr RollerGator PhD".

That is probably an alias. I think no one is going to commit career suicide by getting themselves labelled "Anti-Vaccine" doctor. (Even when this article does not suggest vaccines are bad)..

Citations for the pre-conditions and data from the initial couple of million vaccinations, if you have them, please?

So I guess the claims in the articles are not "debunked" solidly. Not sure why you claimed it.

> (1) you have serious concerns about possible side effects > (2) you have serious concerns about efficiacy > (3) there is no pandemic going on > (4) you want to market your product

Please provide citation for this claim for the list of pre-conditions for phase 2 trials.

>so they decided to monitor the first couple of million vaccinations closely

Where is this data? Is it publicly available, and was it based on voluntary reporting?

>because the number of people that have now been vaccinated is orders of magnitude larger than the largest ever phase 2 trial.

I see this flawed logic getting thrown around, again, and again, and again. I don't think that "number of people vaccinated" does not without a control group where no one is following up and based on voluntary reporting is substitute of a clinical trial.

Why do you think such observational data is sufficient, when all the health agencies have rejected such observational results when it comes to things like Ivermectin?

So again, two questions. Citations for the pre-conditions and data from the initial couple of million vaccinations?

> It is clear that general autonomy can remain a valued principle with specific exceptions.

Sure. It is the ever increasing number of "specific exceptions" that people should be worried about.

> This guy and his writing have been debunked pretty solidly,

Can you show me conclusive evidence that phase 2 trials for these vaccines have NOT been skipped?

I have looked and couldn't find it.

So I was asking around how mRNA vaccines got approved after being blocked in approval process for so long, and a little earlier came across this

https://anthonycolpo.com/the-junk-science-behind-the-moderna...

Ok found something

https://anthonycolpo.com/the-junk-science-behind-the-moderna...

It says, among other things..

>Using reasoning that could only make sense to a government bureaucrat or drug company-sponsored researcher, it was decided no Phase 2 trials were necessary for a drug that had just been shown to cause local and systemic side effects in the vast majority of healthy subjects who took it.

Ok found something

https://anthonycolpo.com/the-junk-science-behind-the-moderna...

It says, among other things..

>Using reasoning that could only make sense to a government bureaucrat or drug company-sponsored researcher, it was decided no Phase 2 trials were necessary for a drug that had just been shown to cause local and systemic side effects in the vast majority of healthy subjects who took it.

All this, while the essential systems to capture vaccine safety signal appear to be apparently broken and based on "voluntary reporting", and the world does not give a single fuck about it...

https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/defining-away-vaccin...

https://tinyurl.com/CovidvFluReport

Look, if the following is true

>only 3 of Moderna's projects had made it past Phase 1 testing, and only one of these was a vaccine

Is it too much if one wonder how these vaccines got past of the trials that were blocking it, by additional funding. Your answer does not make sense because clinical trials are not evaluated based on whether the technology is essential or not.

I don't think I am being unfair when I say your answer is not very convincing. On the other hand it is not really fair that I ll have to accept what ever that is supposed to be an answer. It might work in television debates, but not in an online forum.

Thanks for the answer, but sadly it is not very convincing

>mRNA tech was for a long time believed to be non-essential

Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is is hard to believe. The mRNA tech provide obvious advantages in terms of production and quality control of the vaccines and reduced overall cost, because you no longer have to maintain this library of attenuated viruses..

Also you say

>advantages of mRNA would allow for either a faster development track or for a vaccine that could be changed more rapidly if the virus targeted would mutate.

So you agree that there is obvious advantages to mRNA tech, and we knew it is valuable because the mutation of viruses was not a new discovery that COVID provided.

Also, it seems unlikely that a Company like Moderna would invest in a tech that is currently considered as non-essential.

>The pandemic provided the right circumstances (read: funding)

Yes, this is the crux of my questions. What exactly did the funding enabled? What breakthrough did it yielded?

We already knew that advantages of mRNA would allow for either a faster development track or for a vaccine that could be changed more rapidly. So research funding did not disclose it, we already knew it.

So the questions still stands, sadly.

Also, I came across this article, which kind of says that

>In fact, right before winning federal funding for COVID vaccine development in March 2020, only 3 of Moderna's projects had made it past Phase 1 testing, and only one of these was a vaccine (a cytomegalovirus vaccine codenamed mRNA-1647).

And that kind of refute the claim that it was being blocked because it was seen as non-essential. Or do you think that results of clinical trials are rejected on the basis of how essential the technology is?

https://anthonycolpo.com/the-disturbing-truth-about-moderna-...

Ok, but why is there no answer? These are really simple questions, right?

Also, I don't agree that I am spamming, because I only post the question in the relevant threads.

Do someone have the answer to the following questions?

Why did the mRNA technology remain unapproved for a long time since its inception?

What exactly was relaxed in the approval process that lead to its EUA?

Since the vaccine has been used population wide, will the missed studies or what ever due process eventually be done? Or will they be skipped, citing the real world usage (which was not controlled or followed up in a systematic manner)?

So it appears that we can infer the following..

You can tell some lies to an vaccine skeptic to make them yield to vaccination.

And amusingly the reverse appear to be true as well, that you can tell some facts to a pro-vaxxer to convert them to an vaccine skeptic..

Do someone have the answer to the following questions?

Why did the mRNA technology remain unapproved for a long time since its inception?

What exactly was relaxed in the approval process that lead to its EUA?

Since the vaccine has been used population wide, will the missed studies or what ever due process eventually be done? Or will they be skipped, citing the real world usage (which was not controlled or followed up in a systematic manner)?

Basically, it is the same reasoning. But it does not have to be force sterilisation.

You can say that any one that is not breathing through a mask is exercising their freedom to spread diseases, and so everyone should wear a mask all the time..

Basically, the point is there is a line where your right to be safe and the right of the rest of the world to exist in freedom is in balance. And arguments like the one that is being made is pushing that line to reduce the latter, and if we are not careful, the latter will be reasoned out, in the name of increasing the "protection" of the 0.01% of people from 95.02 to 95.03% (Just made up numbers to illustrate the point).

And it is not hard to imagine who benefits from it.

May be we need a "Citizen freedom index" for every country so that we will know when we are draining it.

Because if it is hard to improve what that cannot be measured, its hard to know when you are draining it as well..

Not sure what to make of your comment.

>Whether or not any central authority endorsed it is moot when 100 million doses have been given.

Not really when these administrations are not followed up in a systematic way. Basically 100 million doses is not a substitute for a clinical trial..