The Coronavirus thread

[NCSteelerfan]

Monmouth survey. You really doubting how crazy Republicans can be even after January 6th?

Ok, this is ridiculous. There are a variety of reasons that people aren't getting the shot right now and not all of them are republican. Are there some republicans that aren't for political reasons? Probably, but that percentage is pretty freakin' small. Linking the 43% not getting it just based solely on being republican is just plain stupid.

 

[Tibs]

Hmm, been a while since we’ve learned the ‘Stanford’ study that Tim’s been preaching about incessantly is a load of horseshit. We endured pages and pages of lecturing about it, yet when it turns out to be a fraudulent, bogus study, Professor Tim goes silent.

Surely an apology and retraction of his idiotic claims about masks is forthcoming. Maybe he’s working on it now.

 

[Troglodyte]

Good....unbelievable....Lord.

Random:

• Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: synonym: chance.
• adj.
  Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.

If it weren't random, it would be predictable. Non-random. Certain. Calculable. Clearly defined. COVID is random. Some states hit hard, others not. Some races hit hard, others not. Some countries hit harder than others.

One cannot predict who will get it. Who will succumb to it.

Case in point. You believe in the variants, and it seems they are real. The virus morphs, like the flu does annually. The definition of.....::drum roll::...random.

You’re either delusional or don’t understand what random means, or both.

It most certainly does have a pattern. Cases steadily increase, plateau and then decrease. If it was random, states would go from having no cases to having many and back again in short order. You wouldn’t be able to discern where it was spreading and where the spread was dissipating. They wouldn’t bother tracking 7 or 14 day trends as there wouldn't be trends.

One can 100% accurately predict that only those exposed will get it, and those not exposed will not.

 

[Troglodyte]

Ok, this is ridiculous. There are a variety of reasons that people aren't getting the shot right now and not all of them are republican. Are there some republicans that aren't for political reasons? Probably, but that percentage is pretty freakin' small. Linking the 43% not getting it just based solely on being republican is just plain stupid.

Today’s Post-Gazette had a Kaiser Family Foundation poll that showed 29% of Republicans definitely not getting it and another 6% only getting it if it was required.

 

[Troglodyte]

Hmm, been a while since we’ve learned the ‘Stanford’ study that Tim’s been preaching about incessantly is a load of horseshit. We endured pages and pages of lecturing about it, yet when it turns out to be a fraudulent, bogus study, Professor Tim goes silent.

Surely an apology and retraction of his idiotic claims about masks is forthcoming. Maybe he’s working on it now.

He’s spending long hours frantically doing google searches.

 

[steel dino]

Today’s Post-Gazette had a Kaiser Family Foundation poll that showed 29% of Republicans definitely not getting it and another 6% only getting it if it was required.

Even though I haven't received the China virus shot and do not fall under the "Republican" category......so maybe I shouldn't even chime in on this? But i will anyway.

Yinz all know what's going to happen if the Republicans continue their God given right to say no to an unmandated vaccination don't you?

1. Biden will mandate it....not sure how he would enforce the mandate though?
2. The Republicans vaccine resistance will be blamed for continued lockdowns.......although totally unnecessary.

Yep.

 

[Tibs]

He’s spending long hours frantically doing google searches.

Something you've built an entire worldview around, put on a pedestal and worshipped for weeks on end, that you made the center of your universe, then suddently, the 'Stanford Study' turns out be completely fraudulent, nothing but trash, deception & lies.

This must be a crushing blow, I truly feel bad for Tim. It may take some time to find his voice and address the matter.

Let's give him some space to work through this. Gonna be tough to pick up the pieces and carry on, but carry on we must, at times like this.

 

[NCSteelerfan]

Today’s Post-Gazette had a Kaiser Family Foundation poll that showed 29% of Republicans definitely not getting it and another 6% only getting it if it was required.

Did the poll state that their specific reason for not getting the vaccine was because they were republican or does part just coincide with their answer? I'm not denying that there are probably some that have taken a stance based on their political leaning, but it's probably more like the vast majority have a number of reasons why. It could be they are taking a wait and see before they make the next step down the road to get the shot. That is pretty much my stance on it at this point, and I'm registered as unaffiliated - which has nothing to do with my reasons why. I'm not anti-vaxxer, nor am I a huge conspiracy theorist. I do, however, have a huge mistrust of Pharma, FDA and doctors at the moment due to my own issues that I'm going through that I have brought up before.

Let me ask you this........Do you think pharma companies ever lie or hide findings during clinical trials of meds and med devices?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

You’re either delusional or don’t understand what random means, or both.

It most certainly does have a pattern. Cases steadily increase, plateau and then decrease. If it was random, states would go from having no cases to having many and back again in short order. You wouldn’t be able to discern where it was spreading and where the spread was dissipating. They wouldn’t bother tracking 7 or 14 day trends as there wouldn't be trends.

One can 100% accurately predict that only those exposed will get it, and those not exposed will not.

Your level of maniacal need to debate is ridiculous. I will concede there are parts of any virus that are predictable. The flu....we can estimate, per year, approximately how many cases we will have, as an example. But we don't know about the mutations as much, where it will hit the hardest, what treatments will work the best this season. There is both a PREDICTABLE and a RANDOM nature to the flu.

Likewise with COVID. There is some predictability. There is also a tremendous amount of randomness. Example: The elderly. Pretty predictable that if someone is 80 or over with comorbidities, chances are bad. However, there are also countless examples that are utterly inexplicable that are totally random....why does a man in his 40s, not overweight, no comorbidities die from it while the obese life long 60 year old smoker gets the sniffles?

Finally, you now seem to be indicating we can measure COVID cases with a degree of predictability....except we can't.

Everyone predicted Texas and MS would suffer wild exorbitant increases in cases after opening up but nope. Inexplicable. Random.

Everyone said if we lock down and wear masks, we will slow cases rising. Cases rose everywhere. Those states with lockdowns still seeing cases elevate despite it.

No, there's been a ton of unpredictability. A massive **** ton of it.

COVID has no pattern anyone predicted. Hindsight is 20/20 vision. In advance, it was slow the curve. Didn't curve become curves? No one predicted 2nd waves last march. Then third. Then variants.

Alllllllllllllll of that shows just how random it has been.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I don't back down from panzy liberals Tibs (you being one). I was 100% in meetings all day yesterday and had obligations in the evening. I have been juggling today and this is the first time I've been in the COVID thread.

I'll look into this, but I'll first accuse you of being a part of the pattern. Remember yesterday I said there is a concerted, global effort to quash dissenting voices? Is this a part of it?

Perhaps he's not a part of Stanford. Perhaps he was invited in for a year. Perhaps they were embarrassed he published something against the narrative. Perhaps.

But I'll ask you, since you call it bullshit. Have you read it? I mean seriously, read it? It's footnoted and sourced throughout. Meaning, you can prove what's been written.

What you are doing is attacking the source. "If Tucker says it, it's bullshit." If this guy wasn't affiliated with Stanford then deny the substance!!!

Yet you fall back to "believe the Government and what they say, it's the TRUTH."

Until you look at say...I don't know...Andrew Cuomo. Hmmm. For a year we were fed his lies. His falsified data. And we were told to believe it. Yet all of those nursing home deaths, all of the data was doctored. Bullshit. Wrong. The media ran with it. His messages were repeated. We all consumed it.

This isn't the first, nor is it the millionth time we've had our media, our government(s) lying to us in the past year. Fauci does it daily. The CDC and the WHO have flip flopped their statements and recommendations so many times, I wouldn't believe them if they tried to tell me breathing was important to sustaining life.

Yet all of those powers that be tell you something and you slowly mutter....Yeessssssss Sirrrrrrr

I'll go do some more digging for you but will ask you, before you show me another hit piece like YouTube on the Harvard Dr. or these people on this study (not attacking the study mind you, just the claim it's from Stanford) you do some research on the nano and micro meter sizes of COVID as it relates to the openings within masks.

As OFTB has said, your aerosols pass through the sides and upper/lower edges of the masks anyway...which is probably why we can't tie any locale with masking to a follow on reduction in cases...anywhere.

 

[Tibs]

I see you take your cues from other big-mouthed braggards on the right like Dan Crenshaw.

And why in the world would I care to read a fraudulent report or give two ***** about what it says?

 

[Badcat]

I see you take your cues from other big-mouthed braggards on the right like Dan Crenshaw.

And why in the world would I care to read a fraudulent report or give two ***** about what it says?

Dan Crenshaw was awarded two Bronze stars, 5 deployments into Hell and medically discharged for wounds he suffered in combat, earning a Purple heart. Regardless of politics, have some ******* respect.

That "Braggard" earned a Masters degree from Harvard's JFK School of Gov and lived abroad his whole life. He's a very learned man with real world experiences. The fact that you look down on a man like him says a lot.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I see you take your cues from other big-mouthed braggards on the right like Dan Crenshaw.

And why in the world would I care to read a fraudulent report or give two ***** about what it says?

You can take the time to open your eyes, or not. Like Steeltime said, I don't know why I bother. Open your eyes and read. Do a little research.

CDC Director Walensky TODAY admitted that information about masks is “constantly changing” as did Jen Psaki today mutter the SAME statement as the Beijing administration struggles with the debate over masking outdoors or not.

Hmmm…so The CDC (who you all listen to until they say something you don’t want to listen to) essentially admits we don’t know everything we need to know about the effectiveness of masks. OK.

Your first Tweet is from Stanford basically saying they don’t want to be affiliated with Baruch Vainshelboim’s study. They did NOT refute the study. They are simply distancing themselves from the study because it doesn’t fit the narrative. OK.

The second tweet ties to an AP article that appears to be a typical fact check article. They say the study is bogus by pointing to other doctors who disagree with the findings.

The first thing this tells us that the science isn’t settled. It hasn’t been. For every medical article one can produce supporting their use, another can be found saying they don’t work. Yet everyone says “the science is settled.” It most certainly is not settled based upon the open debate, based upon The CDC and the White House’s comments today. “Information about masks is constantly changing.”

The AP fact check goes on to say it’s bogus because he’s not affiliated with Stanford and other studies show that wearing masks doesn’t prevent oxygen-related issues, but then goes on to say “The study presents a hypothesis that includes false claims about the health effects of wearing masks. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continues to recommend wearing face coverings to reduce the spread of COVID-19, as research shows they can block the transmission of respiratory droplets, which spread the virus.”

Do you not see what they did? They say since it disagrees with The CDC, it must be false. They say research shows [masks] CAN block the transmission of respiratory droplets. No one, including me, denies that. No mention AT all about aerosols. No mention at all about the meat of the study - the logic - that the virus size is SO TINY it passes through the mesh of surgical/cloth masks which have been measured and referenced inside the article.

Let’s look at his claims, they are sourced. He says:

“According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)]” - this data comes from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7092803/ - the NEJM and NIH. Huh, they are scientists and medical professionals right?

He then says “while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger.” - this data comes from NIH (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32329337/)

He concludes: “Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask” - reference to another NIH-published article.

Each and everyone one of his claims is supported by and sourced from NIH, NEJM. Science. We KNOW the size of the COVID virus. We KNOW the size of the threads in masks. They have been MEASURED.

Now stop for a moment. Forget the politics for one minute and ask yourself this. If it is proven/known that the virus measures 60nm to 140nm (remember a nano meter is 1000 times SMALLER than a micro meter) and medical and non-medical facemarks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 micro meters to 440 micrometers across…how can someone reasonably argue that those masks can prevent the exhalation of virus particles that are that small?

You don’t need to be a scientist to understand this. It quite literally is the chain link fence compared to the mosquito.

Your Tweet about Stanford, your AP Fact Check...neither address this issue. Nothing. Bubkus. They ignore it and repeat the mantra - "The CDC recommends masks and say they CAN prevent the spread of droplets." Wheeeeeeeeeee

There are 67 references in the article, each of which you can view on reputable sources like PubMed.

Nothing you provided addresses the core of what I referenced to the article, which is the proven size of the COVID virus as it relates to the proven sizes of the thread weave in surgical masks and cloth masks.

I’ll contend again, there is a global effort to quash any voice that goes against the accepted ideology. We see Twitter, Facebook, YouTube doing it. We see Government officials doing it. We all saw what happened to the Danish study that was published. There is a concerted effort to silence any science that goes against “the science.”

That should concern us all.

 

[Tibs]

Dan Crenshaw was awarded two Bronze stars, 5 deployments into Hell and medically discharged for wounds he suffered in combat, earning a Purple heart. Regardless of politics, have some ******* respect. That "Braggard" earned a Masters degree from Harvard's JFK School of Gov and lived abroad his whole life. He's a very learned man with real world experiences. The fact that you look down on a man like him says a lot.

I have tons of respect for Dan Crenshaw, the decorated military veteran. I have zero respect for Dan Crenshaw, the MAGA politician.

Funny, how democracy works, isn't it? That it's okay to criticize our elected officals.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Taking the lead from Tibs, posting dated articles...from April of last year.

But the meat matters

This was published on CIDRAP which is the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. They seem pretty qualified to comment on this subject. Scientists. Written by Lisa M Brosseau, ScD, and Margaret Sietsema, PhD

Dr. Brosseau is a national expert on respiratory protection and infectious diseases and professor (retired), University of Illinois at Chicago.
Dr. Sietsema is also an expert on respiratory protection and an assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

"The CDC failed to reference the National Academies of Sciences Rapid Expert Consultation on the Effectiveness of Fabric Masks for the COVID-19 Pandemic (NAS 2020), which concludes, “The evidence from…laboratory filtration studies suggests that such fabric masks may reduce the transmission of larger respiratory droplets. There is little evidence regarding the transmission of small aerosolized particulates of the size potentially exhaled by asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals with COVID-19.” As well, the CDC neglected to mention a well-done study of cloth material filter performance by Rengasamy et al (2014), which we reviewed in our article."

 

[Troglodyte]

Did the poll state that their specific reason for not getting the vaccine was because they were republican or does part just coincide with their answer? I'm not denying that there are probably some that have taken a stance based on their political leaning, but it's probably more like the vast majority have a number of reasons why. It could be they are taking a wait and see before they make the next step down the road to get the shot. That is pretty much my stance on it at this point, and I'm registered as unaffiliated - which has nothing to do with my reasons why. I'm not anti-vaxxer, nor am I a huge conspiracy theorist. I do, however, have a huge mistrust of Pharma, FDA and doctors at the moment due to my own issues that I'm going through that I have brought up before.

Let me ask you this........Do you think pharma companies ever lie or hide findings during clinical trials of meds and med devices?

Only 9% of Independents and 5% of
Democrats surveyed said they definitely won’t get the vaccine. So there’s good reason to think most of it’s politically motivated.

 

[oneforthebus]

Let me ask you this........Do you think pharma companies ever lie or hide findings during clinical trials of meds and med devices?

I don't think they lie, you do? I do think there is not such thing as a perfect clinical trial that studies every med or device in every sector of the population with every possible variable studied in detail.

There are side effects in some number of people to virtually every single medical intervention in existence, and so there is always some acceptable level of risk. I for example had complete vestibular loss due to IV antibiotics. For the 5% or so of people who have inner ear damage it sucks to be one of the acceptable risks. But they would argue my risk of dying from sepsis outweighed my risk of the antibiotic screwing with my balance.

 

[Troglodyte]

Dan Crenshaw was awarded two Bronze stars, 5 deployments into Hell and medically discharged for wounds he suffered in combat, earning a Purple heart. Regardless of politics, have some ******* respect.

That "Braggard" earned a Masters degree from Harvard's JFK School of Gov and lived abroad his whole life. He's a very learned man with real world experiences. The fact that you look down on a man like him says a lot.

Tibs didn’t disrespect Crenshaw’s military service unlike Trump and his disrespect for John McCain’s service.

 

[Steeltime]

Decaf, you bloviating barista, your preaching about making apologies for bullshit stories is laughable. You are literally too stupid to realize what a know-nothing **** holster, what a complete blithering idiot you are when making that statement given:

• Your two years of lying and crying and weeping and making up **** about Trump and Russia! Russia! Russia!
• Your stupidity in claiming that a dementia-suffering old fool, Mueller, had information about Trump owing millions, MILLIONS!, to Russian gangsters.
• Your lying stupidity in insisting that the Proud Boy WhyTe SoOPremAsiSTs brought zip ties with them (gasp!) to kidnap Maxine Waters and Annoying Oral Crap.
• Your lying stupidity in insisting that a Capital Hill police officer, Brian Sicknick, was murdered, MURDERED!, by Trumpists.

Decaf: freeloading scumbag lying cheapskate fake news spewing *******.

 

[Steeltime]

Hmm, been a while since we’ve learned the ‘Stanford’ study that Tim’s been preaching about incessantly is a load of horseshit. We endured pages and pages of lecturing about it, yet when it turns out to be a fraudulent, bogus study, Professor Tim goes silent.

I honestly don't know why I try and correct Decaf's endless litany of lies and distortions. Yet another one.

Decaf, the issue with the paper is not the science cited (at length, footnoted, hyperlinked) but instead the author's claim that he works as an exercise physiologist, a Ph.D., with the "Cardiology Division, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA." Stanford says that the author, Baruch Vainshelboim, "had no affiliation with the school at the time of the study’s publication and his only affiliation was a one-year term as a visiting scholar 'on matters unrelated to this paper.'”

Okay. Stanford did not address any of the detailed points raised and supported with scientific reference and instead disputed the author's relationship to the University, and then said the University fully supports mask wearing. Great. What about the actual arguments, facts, reports, papers, and research cited and discussed in the paper? Silence. Nothing. No substantive responses. Instead, screeching, overstatements, lies, and ad hominem attacks, or what I like to call a "dumb barista."

Further, the paper tackled a very specific subject, a subset if you will, for masks: The efficacy of wearing masks for the asymptomatic/uninfected population. The paper looked at numerous research papers, statements by the CDC and WHO, papers on the effect of limiting 02 intake for non-infected, etc. and concluded that it makes absolutely zero sense for asymptomatic individuals to wear masks, and the masks will not protect them for the Chinese flu while such mask use carries with it a well-documented risk of adverse health consequences brought about by reducing O2 intake due to the mask (something absolutely necessary, as otherwise why wear the ******* thing?). Your narrative as to what the paper said, what it was based on, what Stanford actually said about the contents of the paper are false.

Here is what the paper - you know, the one you did not actually read - said about mask efficacy and the Chinese flu, citing other research articles in detail and hyperlinking them for easy reference:

Efficacy of facemasks​

The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales [16], [17], [25]. According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask [25]. In addition, the efficiency filtration rate of facemasks is poor, ranging from 0.7% in non-surgical, cotton-gauze woven mask to 26% in cotton sweeter material [2].

The substantive response? Nothing.

Clinical scientific evidence challenges further the efficacy of facemasks to block human-to-human transmission or infectivity. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 246 participants [123 (50%) symptomatic)] who were allocated to either wearing or not wearing surgical facemask, assessing viruses transmission including coronavirus [26]. The results of this study showed that among symptomatic individuals (those with fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose ect…) there was no difference between wearing and not wearing facemask for coronavirus droplets transmission of particles of >5 µm. Among asymptomatic individuals, there was no droplets or aerosols coronavirus detected from any participant with or without the mask, suggesting that asymptomatic individuals do not transmit or infect other people [26]. This was further supported by a study on infectivity where 445 asymptomatic individuals were exposed to asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carrier (been positive for SARS-CoV-2) using close contact (shared quarantine space) for a median of 4 to 5 days. The study found that none of the 445 individuals was infected with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase [27].

The substantive response?

The paper goes on to say:

The meta-analysis included four specific studies on COVID-19 transmission (5,929 participants, primarily health-care workers used N95 masks). Although the overall findings showed reduced risk of virus transmission with facemasks, the analysis had severe limitations for drawing such conclusions. One of the four COVID-19 studies had zero infected cases in both arms, and was excluded from meta-analytic calculation. Other two COVID-19 studies had unadjusted models, and were also excluded from the overall analysis. The meta-analytic results were based on only one COVID-19, one MERS and 8 SARS studies, resulting in high selection bias of the studies and contamination of the results between different viruses. Based on four COVID-19 studies, the meta-analysis failed to demonstrate risk reduction of facemasks for COVID-19 transmission, where the authors reported that the results of meta-analysis have low certainty and are inconclusive [30].

The substantive response:

The paper then provides this as the final paragraph in the efficacy portion:

Due to the lower filtration, breathability and overall performance of fabric facemasks, the usage of woven fabric mask such as cloth, and/or non-woven fabrics, should only be considered for infected persons and not for prevention practice in asymptomatic individuals [2]. The Central for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made similar recommendation, stating that only symptomatic persons should consider wearing facemask, while for asymptomatic individuals this practice is not recommended [31]. Consistent with the CDC, clinical scientists from Departments of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology in Australia counsel against facemasks usage for health-care workers, arguing that there is no justification for such practice while normal caring relationship between patients and medical staff could be compromised [32]. Moreover, the WHO repeatedly announced that “at present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19) on the effectiveness face masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection of respiratory viruses, including COVID-19”[2]. Despite these controversies, the potential harms and risks of wearing facemasks were clearly acknowledged. These including self-contamination due to hand practice or non-replaced when the mask is wet, soiled or damaged, development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne and psychological discomfort. Vulnerable populations such as people with mental health disorders, developmental disabilities, hearing problems, those living in hot and humid environments, children and patients with respiratory conditions are at significant health risk for complications and harm [2].

Aaaaaand the substantive response:

Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis

Tibs didn’t disrespect Crenshaw’s military service unlike Trump and his disrespect for John McCain’s service.

Flog and Decaf in action, almost four months after Beijing Joe and Cumala Blowjob take office:

"Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump -
Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump ..."

 

[Ironcitysteelers]

Lmfao. So the in-laws are over. They have been in a bubble and another bubble. Mostly bc the wife. It’s been a “whole thing with the bride” bc of other things.

anywho. They would not leave until they had the “shots of freedom” but even still were limited. At this moment they are here for stuff and both sick. Dry cough, snuffed up, and the like. I busted their balls os hard for “exposing me” .......sorry found this so comica on a day that I may be let go bc of restructuring and I’m loaded.

 

[Confluence]

Let me ask you this........Do you think pharma companies ever lie or hide findings during clinical trials of meds and med devices?

MRNA drugs have been around for about 20 years......none have become FDA approved because the pharma biotech companies have not sought that approval due to the lack of ability to prove the safety of mrna drug treatment. So instead of there being another cancer treatment, these companies cannot show either safety or efficacy yet.....in their internal work.

All of the sudden, less than 18 months after Pfizer buys in to BioNTech, boom the mrna "technology" is now for vaccines.

Maybe they will work for this flu-like pandemic. Maybe not.

But the reason that so many giant pharma companies are Rushing production for Emergency Usage ahead of normally required safety data is two fold: relaxed FDA standards due to the pandemic fear AND the simple fact that vaccine manufacturers are legally shielded from liability, even if they knew about problems.

What could possibly go wrong?
Hopefully, nothing.

Perdue had "no idea" that those helpful opioids would ever cause problems years after FDA approval. They just knew most folks would really love them!

 

[Steeltime]

sorry found this so comica on a day that I may be let go bc of restructuring and I’m loaded.

That sucks. Chinese flu-related, or Biden-related?

 

[oneforthebus]

MRNA drugs have been around for about 20 years......none have become FDA approved because the pharma biotech companies have not sought that approval due to the lack of ability to prove the safety of mrna drug treatment. So instead of there being another cancer treatment, these companies cannot show either safety or efficacy yet.....in their internal work.

All of the sudden, less than 18 months after Pfizer buys in to BioNTech, boom the mrna "technology" is now for vaccines.

Maybe they will work for this flu-like pandemic. Maybe not.

But the reason that so many giant pharma companies are Rushing production for Emergency Usage ahead of normally required safety data is two fold: relaxed FDA standards due to the pandemic fear AND the simple fact that vaccine manufacturers are legally shielded from liability, even if they knew about problems.

What could possibly go wrong?
Hopefully, nothing.

Perdue had "no idea" that those helpful opioids would ever cause problems years after FDA approval. They just knew most folks would really love them!

From what I've read they never got to large clinical trials to prove safety and efficacy due to the fact that Mrna is very unstable and needs to be transported and stored at extreme low temperatures. Therefore other drugs won out. Mrna vaccines have been looked at for SARS and MERS but both of those being far less contagious than covid 19, the illnesses pretty much petered out on their own making the research moot.

 

[Confluence]

From what I've read they never got to large clinical trials to prove safety and efficacy due to the fact that Mrna is very unstable and needs to be transported and stored at extreme low temperatures. Therefore other drugs won out. Mrna vaccines have been looked at for SARS and MERS but both of those being far less contagious than covid 19, the illnesses pretty much petered out on their own making the research moot.

There are several global clinical trials now!