loveistheanswer

>Why 5 years? Why not 1? Why not 50? What's so special to people about 5 years?

Clinical trials are conducted over many years (rather than just 1) for historical safety reasons[1]

>There is a faction of fools out there who resist being a part of society, but claim all of its privileges. These are sub-human individuals

This is hate speech, especially considering the disproportionate rates of black and hispanic people who are unvaccinated.

[1]https://www.brightfocus.org/clinical-trials/how-clinical-tri...

This is an interview with the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology.

Youtube censored the full interview, but you can view it here:

https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/how-to-save-the-world%2C...

Edit: a quote from the "fact check" that thinks they debunked this claim:

>“When you are vaccinated, your cells use the mRNA (or DNA from adenovirus vector) to make spike protein in your cells. Your cells “show” your immune system the spike protein and pieces of the spike protein. The spike protein does not kill those cells, it is not cytotoxic,” Durbin explained.

This shows how the "fact checkers" didn't even understand the claim to begin with. Dr. Malone wasn't saying the spike protein is cytotoxic to the cells which produce it, but when it falls off those cells and spreads to other parts of the body (heart, brain, ovaries, etc.) it is cytotoxic to other cells.

Its a great example of how blinding ideology and partisan politics is.

For people who did not have their identity tied to either political side, the lab leak theory was always an obvious possibility.

>You write this as if NIH is a privately run foundation with Fauci at the head. He's not even head of the NIH

He has been the head of the NIAID, the infectious diseases arm of the NIH, for ~37 years.

>“If you ban gain-of-function research, you ban all of virology.”

This is an absurd strawman. If it were true, why have there been so many virologists calling GoF unethical and seeking to prohibit it?

Because we're talking about research of biological weapons of mass destruction.

From Fauci's paper:

>In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic? Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario...

>Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky.

So the basic risk calculation Fauci is using (which is disputed by many scientists and virologists) is this:

Lives saved by GoF research > lives lost by inevitable lab leak + lives lost by inevitable natural pandemic

Gain of function research has been going on for decades now. What evidence is there that this research has actually served its purpose to help save lives? Did GoF help us at all with the current pandemic?

The people who judge and define others primarily by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.

Those who fight racism with racism and call it anti-racism or reverse-racism.

Those who use hate, blame, and punishment as their tools of power, rather than love, forgiveness, and self/community empowerment.

Those who focus on division rather than unity.

>Growing to overcome past problems is not sufficient.

Their assumption is moreso that we cant grow to overcome past problems. So the only way to build themselves up is to tear others down.

Thats why the popular "anti-racism" philosophy is so antithetical to and ignorant of the lives and philosophies of many of the greatest civil rights leaders such as Frederick Douglass, Booker T Washington, and MLK.

>Why do people feel the need to socially shame people publicly for an offense over a decade ago?

Because they're playing a game of Moral Supremacy one-upsmanship. In the long run, everyone who plays this game must lose, because were all humans. But in the short term this game can be quite lucrative in terms of attention getting, internet points, and money.

Can you quote where exactly they are "conflating the state of Israel and Jewish people and lumping it all together."?

>Plenty of Jewish people that live both inside and outside of Israel are critical of the state.

Is this not exactly what this thought experiment of an article is talking about? Trying to put themselves on the shoes of a Jewish person who is critical of Israels politics

>The main avenue would be by getting rid of the sanctioned on/off ramps for crypto (that is, crypto exchanges), leaving only the illegal on/off ramps which I'm sure exist.

From what I've read it seems its only the stupidest of criminals who are using exchanges like Coinbase to cash out, because that's the easiest way to get caught.

What is "biased" about calling dual use technologies such as artificially enhanced viruses weapons of mass destruction?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use_technology#Biologic...

What is?

The politically correct term that the editorial is advocating for is gain of function research.

Here's a quote from one of the referenced NIH studies in the editorial which makes it plain:

>"laboratory experiments that resulted in viruses with enhanced transmissibility in mammals"

Gain of function enhanced viruses are inherently dual use, so calling them biological weapons of mass destruction is not hyperbole.

>"despite some crazy people in this world"

Is making biological weapons of mass destruction crazy?

Fauci does not think so.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-flu-virus-risk-wor...

>the old trope about doing LSD and then spending a day trying not to jump out a window doesn't come from nowhere.

It seems that "old trope" actually came from the CIA's MKULTRA project where they were secretly dosing unwitting people with LSD:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Olson

>Epistemologically, this is where we are as a country: when content gets expurgated because of blatant misinformation, it is taken as a sure sign of that source’s truthfulness.

Its funny how oblivious pro-censorship people are to the nature, effects, and history of censorship

In what ways is the technology itself, rather than how it may often be used, a scam?

How would you know if your political party was trying to score political points? What specific criteria would have to be met?

Thats not how science works.

1. First you make a hypothesis.

2. Then you gather data.

If people arent allowed to make hypotheses or gather data around hypotheses, we can't do the scientific method.

Do you have any sources for long term mRNA vaccine trials on humans?

My searches seem to indicate there are none, other than the preliminary, limited scope short term trials

It almost seems like a lot of people don't want the data to indicate that natural immunity is strong and long lasting, even though the data shows that reinfection is extemely rare.

Similar to how so many people have been unwilling to even consider a lab leak was a possibility, until just now it seems, because that idea was heresy to the orthodox dogma that ordained Scientists are Saviors.

Humans have equated sickness with Sin for thousands of years, and catching covid has been no exception.

Control: the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events.

You don't think communication influences or directs people's behavior?

Thats a good point.

We'd need to compare the number of confirmed reinfections divided by confirmed infections with the number of breakthrough cases divided by the number of fully vaccinated people.

Its also worth noting the confirmed reinfection count is on a much longer time scale than breakthrough infections. So we currently have more data about the long term natural immunity than we do for vaccinated immunity.

>Does the US not differentiate between those who have had it and those that didn't?

No they do not. Public messaging has completely ignored natural immunity.

>We are at the tail end of this thing _because_ we have a vaccination available.

Are you implying naturally gained immunity does not play a role in herd immunity? Is there any data which supports this hypothesis?

>There are multiple documented cases where a person caught COVID twice

There have been far more breakthrough cases of fully vaccinated people than there have been confirmed reinfections.

Stalin would have killed to have the powerful tools that Zuckerberg has.

Stalin only had control over the speech and thoughts of around one hundred million people in one country.

Zuckerberg has control over the speech and thoughts of around three billion people in countries across the world.

>mRNA technology has been in development for many years with much of the effort going into studies of human safety.

Have there been any long term human trials of mRNA vaccines?