Science & Technology News

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Misinformation about mmgwc no I post a different scientific view .
That's how science works .
There is no consensus in real scientific research.

Me full antivaxx? You mean the fact I posted that I personally won't be taking part in the large scale drug trial the planet is currently doing?
Then call me a control group.

In both cases, you're not doing science, you're doing partisanship. It's obvious; you post something (usually right off of some alternative-facts site), somebody posts a scientific rebuttal, you just reply "do your research" or MMGWC! or ""msm" or some such baloney, and then you go quiet, til the next volley. Lather rinse repeat. That's not science. Just seeking and lobbing arguments.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

In both cases, you're not doing science, you're doing partisanship. It's obvious; you post something (usually right off of some alternative-facts site), somebody posts a scientific rebuttal, you just reply "do your research" or MMGWC! or ""msm" or some such baloney, and then you go quiet, til the next volley. Lather rinse repeat. That's not science. Just seeking and lobbing arguments.

Wrong on both counts .

As usual you don't do your research before making negative comments about me.

As to the biggest clinical trial of an experimental medication that is a fact.
Otherwise they wouldn't still be using the mRNA shot under an EUA.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

...As to the biggest clinical trial of an experimental medication that is a fact.
Otherwise they wouldn't still be using the mRNA shot under an EUA.

They're not using the mRNA shots under an EUA, in adults.

As I previously reported, on Oct 3, and AS YOU WELL KNOW [1], Pfizer's ' Comirnaty' vaccine is fully approved for individuals 16 years of age and older:
Here ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3495193
And ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3495218

On August 23/21, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine, known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, which will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older.
The vaccine also continues to be available under emergency use authorization (EUA), including for individuals 12 through 15 years of age and for the administration of a third dose in certain immunocompromised individuals.
➥ https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pres...vid-19-vaccine


*

Originally Posted by newhaul

License has been given [1] but the " vaccine " has not yet gone into production.
The stuff out there is still being administered under the emergency use authorization act. Which states it is an experimental shot [2].
Do the research don't just accept MSM

[2] The Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) authority allows FDA to help strengthen the nation’s public health protections...
... by facilitating the availability and use of medical countermeasures (MCMs) needed during public health emergencies...
... FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases...
... when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives...”
NO mention of Experimental ➥ https://www.fda.gov/emergency-prepar...-authorization

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I cannot find a patent application [from Pfizer nor anyone else], for the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Perhaps, you could show us. ....
There is still zero evidence that this new coronavirus was deliberately created by humans, and every indication that it mutated spontaneously, as viruses routinely do, and became good at invading human cells.

I am not responding point by point to this lynch mob leveling these accusations at me, accusing me of lying and being a scourge to society. No one has refuted my points in any meaningful way despite given every opportunity to do so. Who said what and who posted what is all here for anyone to see. Lynching the messenger is the dominant theme here. Addressing serious allegations and implications deserves more than the deflecting smear tactic fact checks and subsequent threats and name calling that users are posting. If this was a court of law, none of that would be admissible.

The information was presented by David E. Martin (yes he appeared in Plandemic so get over it). He states:

We took the actual genetic sequences that
were reportedly novel and reviewed those against the patent records that were available
as of the spring of 2020. And what we found, as you'll see in this report, are over 120
patented pieces of evidence, to suggest that the declaration of a 'novel coronavirus' was
actually entirely a fallacy. There was no novel coronavirus. There are countless, very
subtle modifications of coronavirus sequences that have been uploaded, but there was
no single identified 'novel coronavirus' at all. As a matter of fact, we found records in the
patent records, of sequences attributed to novelty, going to patents that were sought as
early as 1999. So not only was this not a novel anything, it's actually not only not been
novel, it's not been novel for over two decades.
David E. Martin testifies at the German Corona Inquiry Committee July 9th, 2021

You can watch that interview on Youtube, if I put the link it will plaster the post so here is the transcript and in it are many relevant patent numbers. https://drive.google.com/file/d/19o1...iNbnr5wTz/view
I don't believe that this lynch mob here can actually read well enough to sift through any of this without making blathering slanderous accusations and pasting Reuters type fact checks designed to deflect and obfuscate the relevant facts. I believe that you Gord (even though you completely disagree) will take time to examine the claims and not post complete rubbish in response.

The rest of Martins allegations, I have already posted in a the document titled, The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier. https://www.davidmartin.world/wp-con...19_Dossier.pdf

Lake's comment,

The biggest whopper being that it's not a "vaccine" it's "experimental gene therapy". Without your semantic abuse, your weak case absolutely crumbles.

is humorous because I already tore that argument to shreds back in June. He is the one arguing sematics, not I.
It is here:https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...249575-41.html
I quoted the journal, Nature:

both mRNA-based vaccines represent a unique case that is considered one of the most advanced and promising achievements in the field of pharmaceutical biotechnology and biopharmaceutical formulations. More than three decades of research effort on developing gene therapy solutions for many diseases could not convey many healthcare policymakers, pharmaceutical companies, funding agencies, medicine agencies, and drug administrations to adopt gene therapy avenues as highly potential approaches to transfer the therapeutic strategies into a new era. However, these mRNA vaccines, which have been developed and approved within a few months, signify a breakthrough in the field of gene therapy, which has battled to achieve ordinary acknowledgement due to a large number of skeptical and conservative scientists and other claimed safety and translational concerns. Although these two vaccines are not the first approved drugs utilizing genetic materials as active ingredients, they are believed to be a milestone in modern medical history that may forever change pharmaceutical approaches. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41435-021-00136-6

Relevant quote's from Albert Einstein:
"In two weeks the sheeplike masses of any country can be worked up by the newspaper into such a state of excited fury that men are prepared to put on uniforms and kill and be killed, for the sake of the sordid ends of a few interested parties."

"Our entire much-praised technological progress, and civilization generally, could be compared to an axe in the hand of a pathological criminal."

[sv_pelagia]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

I quoted the journal, Nature:

As usual, you cherry pick. The Nature "correspondence" you quoted is a long, interesting, letter explaining the mRNA vaccine and is very positive towards these vaccines and what they hold for the future. But no, you ignore the bulk and cherry pick a paragraph that you think says the mRNA vaccines are actual gene therapy.

Sadly, this thread, has become primarily NOT a "Science & Technology" thread (with due respect to Gord, who, as OP, regularly sticks to the original purpose). It has become a vehicle for repetitive argument between an anti-science ever-shrinking (but noisy) universe versus an expanding pro-Science rational universe. One where one group cites junk and childishly tells people they have reading difficulties (all the time demonstrating that they themselves suffer a serious reading/comprehension disorder) and order them to "go stand in the corner" (must have been a favourite solution by their own parents and teachers). The two universes do not seem able to overlap. So why bother?

For me, perusal of this thread is truly a waste of time. Conspiracy porn. So this is my last here. I've got real science to focus on (including my own). Very best of luck to those here who labour to provide evidence against garbage.

No point in responding by telling me to go stand in the corner (etc). I've gone there. Far away.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

They're not using the mRNA shots under an EUA, in adults.

As I previously reported, on Oct 3, and AS YOU WELL KNOW [1], Pfizer's ' Comirnaty' vaccine is fully approved for individuals 16 years of age and older:
Here ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3495193
And ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3495218

On August 23/21, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine, known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, which will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older.
The vaccine also continues to be available under emergency use authorization (EUA), including for individuals 12 through 15 years of age and for the administration of a third dose in certain immunocompromised individuals.
➥ https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pres...vid-19-vaccine


*

[2] The Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) authority allows FDA to help strengthen the nation’s public health protections...
... by facilitating the availability and use of medical countermeasures (MCMs) needed during public health emergencies...
... FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases...
... when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives...”
NO mention of Experimental ➥ https://www.fda.gov/emergency-prepar...-authorization

Do the research GordMay you are better than this . The shot still being given is under an EUA .

And I'm done. I refuse the shot on personal reasons . As is my right.

When something of real note comes up I may discuss again . Enjoy this ( currently) echo chamber.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Lake's comment,

is humorous because I already tore that argument to shreds back in June. He is the one arguing sematics, not I.
...
I quoted the journal, Nature:

It's hilarious that you quote from that article but apparently didn't read it; the expert author goes to great lengths to point out how and why mRNA vaccines are superior and safer than dead-virus vaccines. [as sv_pelagia details above] Moreover, although mRNA can be used to deliver gene therapies, and the vaccines came about because of research and advances in that field, the author does not explicitly call the current COVID mRNA vaccines "gene therapy". But sure, there's room for confusion because the author doesn't explicitly NOT call them one either .

So let's clear up any doubts:
Fact Check-mRNA vaccines are distinct from gene therapy, which alters recipient’s genes

(it's Reuters, get over it . There are others if you prefer.) Semantics matter; hyperbole and misinformation make poor foundations for convincing arguments.

"Lynch-mob"? Ok, you're a conspiracy nut AND a drama queen. I didn't call you a liar; I'm saying that the referenced misinformation was others LYING to you.

Originally Posted by newhaul

I refuse the shot on personal reasons . As is my right.

Absolutely your right. But you have no right to spread nonsense, and not get challenged on it.

[GordMay]

Of Horses, Zebra, & Unicorn’s

There’s an old saying in the medical community, usually attributed to Theodore Woodward, professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine:
“When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.”
It generally refers to the fact that, when evaluating a patient, a physician must consider common diagnoses, before rare ones, because common things are common.

But, when it comes to several recent discussions [climate change or Covid-19, vaccines, & etc], some of our contrarians [skeptics & deniers] are telling us, not to think horses, or even zebras.
They're saying, think unicorns [1].
The contrarians want us to believe that the alarm, about climate change [or Covid-19, etc], is based on a scientific hoax.

This hoax would have to be beyond extraordinary. Over the course of history, there have been hoaxes in science; a scientist, or two, creating false evidence. But if any scientific hoax has involved more than two, or three people, I have been unable to discover it.

We have a choice.
One can believe that we have a huge conspiracy, involving powerful [secret & public] organizations, most of the world's scientists, the mainstream media, and me, to commit a scientific hoax [or several]. A hoax, bigger, by many orders of magnitude, than anything ever seen before.
Or, one can believe that we have powerful corporations, and the political parties that serve them, following a well-established pattern of deception, for the sake of profits.
Think horses.

“If it looks like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a duck,waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck - not a government surveillance drone, nor some virgin's captive pet.”

[1] In European folklore, the unicorn was commonly described as a [mythical] wild, woodland creature, whose magical horn could heal illness, and render poisonous water potable. A symbol of purity and grace, it could only be captured and tamed by a virgin. The appeal of the unicorn was its rarity. It symbolized something that was unattainable.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's hilarious that you quote from that article but apparently didn't read it; the expert author goes to great lengths to point out how and why mRNA vaccines are superior and safer than dead-virus vaccines. [as sv_pelagia details above] Moreover, although mRNA can be used to deliver gene therapies, and the vaccines came about because of research and advances in that field, the author does not explicitly call the current COVID mRNA vaccines "gene therapy". But sure, there's room for confusion because the author doesn't explicitly NOT call them one either .

So let's clear up any doubts:
Fact Check-mRNA vaccines are distinct from gene therapy, which alters recipient’s genes
(it's Reuters, get over it . There are others if you prefer.) Semantics matter; hyperbole and misinformation make poor foundations for convincing arguments.

We have been over this ad nauseam. Yes words can matter. mRNA therapy was referred as gene therapy in all the literature prior to 2020. Reuters works for Pfizer. Pfizer are convicted felons. Their fact checks are never even remotely scientific and neither are yours. You make weak arguments. Covid vaccines are meant to pave the way for genetic medicine. The C-span video I posted proves it https://www.c-span.org/video/?465845...al-flu-vaccine
If gene therapy semantics is the axe that you picked to grind, you should come up with better sources.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Over 11,400 doctors & scientists have signed the Rome Declaration...

There are probably 10 to 15 million medical doctors [plus millions more scientists] in the world, so ±10,000* signatories to the Rome Declaration [if accurate] would represent an infinitesimal proportion [± 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 15,000] of physicians [± 0.010%].

According to this [1] NEJM article:
In 2014, “... there were 9.2 million doctors and 18.1 million nurses worldwide ...”

[1] “Global Supply of Health Professionals” ~ by Nigel Crisp, M.A., and Lincoln Chen, M.D.
➥ https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmra1111610


* For perspective:
According to ➥ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?zarsrc=130
Coronavirus Cases: 238,214,563
Deaths: 4,860,713
Recovered: 215,359,881

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

There are probably 10 to 15 million medical doctors [plus millions more scientists] in the world, so ±10,000 signatories to the Rome Declaration [if accurate] would represent an infinitesimal proportion [± 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 15,000] of physicians.

According to this [1] NEJM article:
In 2014, “... there were 9.2 million doctors and 18.1 million nurses worldwide ...”

[1] “Global Supply of Health Professionals” ~ by Nigel Crisp, M.A., and Lincoln Chen, M.D.
➥ https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmra1111610

All it takes is one that is right. The scientific method at work

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by GordMay

There are probably 10 to 15 million medical doctors [plus millions more scientists] in the world, so ±10,000 signatories to the Rome Declaration [if accurate] would represent an infinitesimal proportion [± 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 15,000] of physicians.

According to this [1] NEJM article:
In 2014, “... there were 9.2 million doctors and 18.1 million nurses worldwide ...”

[1] “Global Supply of Health Professionals” ~ by Nigel Crisp, M.A., and Lincoln Chen, M.D.
➥ https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmra1111610

My point was that there is no consensus among them concerning the current pandemic and how to treat it, even though the AMA, and the media consortium are trying to make it seem like there is. Doctors should be free to practice medicine. Many are afraid to speak out for fear of suspension. Many doctors are in the hands of big pharma which has been proven by the recent opioid epidemic. Only a handful of doctors (comparatively) have been willing to treat covid. Effective treatments have been suppressed in favor of new expensive ones. 45% of Remdesivir treated covid patients die within 2 weeks. Medicare data has been released which contradicts the narrative. Monoclonal antibody treatment is being denied to inpatients. We are being coerced and lied to.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

mRNA therapy was referred as gene therapy in all the literature prior to 2020.

Police use cars. Yet not all cars are police cars. mRNA can be used to deliver gene therapy. mRNA can also be used to trigger creation of proteins (not gene therapy). Your continued dependence on this semantic error is pathetic.

Reuters works for Pfizer.

I don't care what Robert F Kennedy told you; Reuters is not owned by Pfizer, or takes direction from them. (and where does this theory leave Moderna?)

Pfizer are convicted felons.

I'm not the biggest fan of our corporate overlords, and how the people actually responsible in corporations often seem to get away with stuff... but a corporation is not a person. It's tens of thousands of people. Are they all felons? Should we throw out every drug or treatment Pfizer ever made? They f'ed up and were caught. They also have developed, made and sold many useful products.

Their fact checks are never even remotely scientific .

Ridiculous. Not helping your case.

Covid vaccines are meant to pave the way for genetic medicine.

Tinfoil hat stuff.

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

My point was that there is no consensus among them concerning the current pandemic and how to treat it.

In the US, 96% of doctors are vaccinated. Seems like a pretty strong consensus in favour of vaccination, to me. You just don't want to see it.

Simply put, you are seriously, dangerously wrong about all this.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

In the US, 96% of doctors are vaccinated[/URL]. Seems like a pretty strong consensus in favour of vaccination, to me. You just don't want to see it.

Simply put, you are seriously, dangerously wrong about all this.

As I already pointed (once again proving that you don't check my links), 96% out of a survey of 301.
https://www.ama-assn.org/system/file...ine-report.pdf

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Over 11,400 doctors & scientists have signed the Rome Declaration.
Are they also a cancerous mass that needs to be removed and destroyed.?? For stating that?

Are they our anointed saviours, that we should follow with messianic fervor, or [much more likely] a vanishingly small minority of medical quacks?

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... In the US, 96% of doctors are vaccinated. Seems like a pretty strong consensus in favour of vaccination, to me. You just don't want to see it.
Simply put, you are seriously, dangerously wrong about all this.

Indeed.