2089 replies to this topic

[gamesguru]

It's presumptive to assume their initial claims had nefarious intentions behind them. Denunciatory language such as "what are they trying to hide" reflects such a conviction.

 

Capitalist companies go through great lengths to avoid even isolated incidents of bad publicity. This is not a tendency which I approve of like, but nor is it unique to Pfizer. I think organizations—like individuals—ought to be perfectly transparent and humanitarian. Sadly, that's not the world we live in and there's plenty of examples of that every day.

 

Are you hoping the answer is nothing? Or are you consistently worried the answer will be something? I think this needs to be weighted against available scientific evidence, which overwhelmingly suggests that adverse events are acute rather than chronic or delayed.

[Daniel Cooper]

It's presumptive to assume their initial claims had nefarious intentions behind them. Denunciatory language such as "what are they trying to hide" reflects such a conviction.

 

Capitalist companies go through great lengths to avoid even isolated incidents of bad publicity. This is not a tendency which I approve of like, but nor is it unique to Pfizer. I think organizations—like individuals—ought to be perfectly transparent and humanitarian. Sadly, that's not the world we live in and there's plenty of examples of that every day.

 

Are you hoping the answer is nothing? Or are you consistently worried the answer will be something? I think this needs to be weighted against available scientific evidence, which overwhelmingly suggests that adverse events are acute rather than chronic or delayed.

 

I disagree. When a company makes a completely unreasonable claim that results in a lack of transparency on their part, it's not unreasonable to ask "Are they hiding something". In fact, the question follows naturally from the unreasonable assertion.

 

Now, it may turn out that they are hiding nothing. But the question itself is perfectly reasonable in light of the circumstances.

 

As far as capitalist companies going to great lengths to avoid bad publicity - I'll let you in on a secret - it's not just capitalist companies. Pretty much every individual person and every human organization exhibits that behavior. From you and me to the great socialist/communist endeavors of the prior century. 

 

Which is why you want to be vigilant in things of this nature.

[gamesguru]

Yes but I think the tone of the question needs to be tempered. Language matters, and often reveals the degree of one's conviction (which is often inversely related to the strength of the rational basis of that belief).

 

I would argue what are the companies producing plastics, flame retardants and petrochemicals hiding? A scientific investigation might reveal concerning side effects of flame retardants in drinking water. Yet when this is weighted against the vastly inadequate public statements released in response by these companies, it becomes clear nothing is being done.

 

Of course being vigilant is important and totally fine. That's why when the evidence is leaning against you, it may be time to adjust your beliefs. Rather than appealing to speculation about fiscal motives, I suggest academic research as a more impartial medium of information exchange & objective analysis.

[Daniel Cooper]

Yes but I think the tone of the question needs to be tempered. Language matters, and often reveals the degree of one's conviction (which is often inversely related to the strength of the rational basis of that belief).

 

You're talking about a company that claimed it would take three quarters of a century to release their internal data on a vaccine that was given to billions of people.

 

You'll have to excuse me if I don't temper my language in response to that.

[gamesguru]

I already agreed that was an unreasonable request. But I disagree with the accusatory tone and the sentiment that this automatically makes them guilty.

 

I will not be excusing you unfortunately neutral language is a nearly absolute principle of mine.

 

If you want to reword things in a calmer, more neutral tone—and present some scientific evidence to compliment it—then we can continue the discussion of this point. Otherwise it will be challenging.

[Daniel Cooper]

So, if I were to peruse your prior posts on Longecity, I would find them a paragon of neutral language given that is an absolute principle of yours?

 

 

[gamesguru]

I think someone's behavior prior to a spiritual transformation or undergoing significant personal growth isn't necessarily relevant to their current habits or demeanor, and that this amounts to an ad hominem attack.

[Daniel Cooper]

It was a question, not an attack. 

 

Congratulations on your personal growth.

 

 

[gamesguru]

What was the intention behind the question, though? Was it an attempt to expose some sort of perceived character defect or inconsistency in belief?

 

I haven't seen any scientific evidence come forward on the subject matter we were previously discussion before these personal derailments were injected.

[Daniel Cooper]

What was the intention behind the question, though? Was it an attempt to expose some sort of perceived character defect or inconsistency in belief?

 

I haven't seen any scientific evidence come forward on the subject matter we were previously discussion before these personal derailments were injected.

 

No, it was just that your claim of valuing neutral language seemed at odds with at least some prior posting habits. Surely you would admit this fact?

 

I was unaware of your recent spiritual awakening. 

[gamesguru]

Yes, I would. But how is that relevant to the discussion?

 

I welcome your congratulations. Also, if you'd read my posts more clearly in the past month, you would notice the uptrend.

[Daniel Cooper]

Indeed, the thread has drifted well off topic and I'm at least half to blame. 

[gamesguru]

Given the fact that this is an internet discussion between strangers of differing opinions, I think a certain degree of formality & diplomacy is called for. This isn't your best friend who you can freely joke around with & be dramatic, or your uncle whom you deeply confide in & align with.

 

There is no doubt value in philosophical back-and-forth as well as psychological examination, but the intentions behind it ought to be neutral and the majority of the discussion ought to be centered around facts and scientific theories rather than people and past behavior.

[gamesguru]

Just to clarify, I am sincerely apologizing for my past behavior. It was not appropriate, I hope it did not adversely affect anyone, and nothing of the sort will happen again. The good thing is I was able to choose to change my behavior & learn from my mistakes. And I am thankful that I am still here and being given this opportunity to grow.

 

That said, I think the original point still holds—about softening language in public forums.

 

It's not that I'm claiming you're invalid as a person just because you're using more connotative language. We're all wonderful people here. I'm just arguing it's a habit that can be improved. We shouldn't shame our past selves or hate ourselves. We are all doing the best at a given point, and can stand to learn from any mistakes we make or bad habits we have. We need to dis-identify with our ego, it makes personal growth & change much easier and makes us more cooperative and informed as a collective whole.

 

I've been re-reading the Tao Te Ching. Might explain why I have this perspective. Sorry if a lot of this sounds pedantic but I feel it's reasonably accurate & practical.

Edited by gamesguru, 03 August 2023 - 09:43 PM.

[Gal220]

Pfizer Senate hearing in Australia

 

https://twitter.com/...020049734017024

https://twitter.com/...257112286822405

https://twitter.com/...260730058539008

 

search

https://twitter.com/...ed_query&f=live

[Hip]

Good news for all the antivaxers and vaccine skeptics here: research is underway to create a fast track system that can deliver a brand new vaccine within 100 days of any future pandemic that may break out.

 

This 100 day fast track vaccine may provide the vaccine skeptics with a whole new opportunity to promote misinformation, conspiracy theories and scaremongering!   

 

 

 

Normally it takes 10 years to create a new vaccine, but during the COVID pandemic, scientists worked amazingly hard to get vaccines out within 18 months. However, G7 governments want to reduce this time even further to just 100 days, so that any new pandemic can be rapidly dealt with. This 100 day target will be extremely difficult, but scientists are trying to rise to the challenge of fulfilling that objective. The plus side is that technology is advancing very fast, so this will hopefully make achieving the objective easier.

 

It has been estimated there is a 47-57% chance of having another pandemic as serious as COVID within the next 25 years. But hopefully next time, the vaccines will be delivered so fast that there will be little need for lockdowns, and the economic consequences that these entail. 

Edited by Hip, 08 August 2023 - 05:08 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Good news for all the antivaxers and vaccine skeptics here: research is underway to create a fast track system that can deliver a brand new vaccine within 100 days of any future pandemic that may break out.

 

This 100 day fast track vaccine may provide the vaccine skeptics with a whole new opportunity to promote misinformation, conspiracy theories and scaremongering!   

 

 

A 100 day fast track gives me a great deal of pause and I took the first two shots. I'd really like to see the rationale and the data when it is available on how you can make a vaccine that quickly and necessarily do so little testing (how much testing is even possible in 100 days?) and be reasonably assured that the vaccine that results is safe?

 

And at least as far as I can tell, the term "antivaxers" for the most part doesn't apply to this forum.  I really don't see people disparaging vaccines in general. It seems to be this particular vaccine that they have issue with.

[Daniel Cooper]

Good news for all the antivaxers and vaccine skeptics here: research is underway to create a fast track system that can deliver a brand new vaccine within 100 days of any future pandemic that may break out.

 

This 100 day fast track vaccine may provide the vaccine skeptics with a whole new opportunity to promote misinformation, conspiracy theories and scaremongering!   

 

 

 

Normally it takes 10 years to create a new vaccine, but during the COVID pandemic, scientists worked amazingly hard to get vaccines out within 18 months. However, G7 governments want to reduce this time even further to just 100 days, so that any new pandemic can be rapidly dealt with. This 100 day target will be extremely difficult, but scientists are trying to rise to the challenge of fulfilling that objective. The plus side is that technology is advancing very fast, so this will hopefully make achieving the objective easier.

 

It has been estimated there is a 47-57% chance of having another pandemic as serious as COVID within the next 25 years. But hopefully next time, the vaccines will be delivered so fast that there will be little need for lockdowns, and the economic consequences that these entail. 

 

BTW - personally I think they would be better served in developing broad spectrum antivirals. Some have already been proposed but don't seem to have a lot of funding behind them at the moment.

 

With something like that you could do loads of testing beforehand and have a high degree of confidence in the safety and not be in some mad dash to create a new vaccine and try to test it in a very short span of time.

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 08 August 2023 - 02:59 PM.

[Hip]

BTW - personally I think they would be better served in developing broad spectrum antivirals. Some have already been proposed but don't seem to have a lot of funding behind them at the moment.

 

A broad-spectrum antiviral would be the holy grail. But it's much harder to create broad-spectrum antiviral effects than it is to produce broad-spectrum antibacterial action. We have lots of broad-spectrum antibiotics, but not much in the way of broad-spectrum antivirals. 

 

 

I've spent the last 10 years hunting for compounds that might have action against my virus, coxsackievirus B4. This virus I believe underpins my chronic disease of ME/CFS, so if an effective antiviral could be found, I could be cured, or at least have much improved health. 

 

In my research over 10 years, I found at least 120 substances (such as supplements, herbal extracts, off-label drugs, compounds in the research pipeline, etc) that have in vitro antiviral effects against my virus, demonstrated in studies. But for various reasons, none of these pan out to working in vivo.

 

So I still have not found that elusive antiviral to cure my chronic disease. Coxsackievirus B is actually linked to a number of diseases, so if an effective antiviral were found, we might be able to cure a whole host of illness. 

 

But that is easier said than done, and once you've spent 10 years looking for answers, you begin to understand how difficult it is.

 

 

 

But we should remain optimistic, because maybe some new biomedical technology will come along in future that enables us to target all viruses in a broad-spectrum manner. 

 

The promise of such a technology is not just protection from future pandemics, but theoretically this tech could cure a wide range of chronic diseases and cancers, since almost every everyday chronic disease has been linked to an ongoing low-level viral infection in the tissues of the diseased organs. 

 

So a golden age of perfect health may await us if we can figure out how to fully eliminate viral infections from the body tissues.

Edited by Hip, 08 August 2023 - 03:21 PM.

[joesixpack]

Dated August 7, 2023. Interesting development.

 

https://discovermedn...o-case-reports/

 

The authors from the United Kingdom conducted a retrospective cohort study to examine the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status of individuals who were diagnosed with leprosy and attended in 2021 the Leprosy Clinic at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, London, UK, a national referral center in the UK for tropical and infectious diseases. They also examined whether any of these individuals had developed leprosy or experienced a new leprosy reaction within the 12 weeks following the anri-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. They presented two cases who met the criteria for a new leprosy adverse events associated with BNT162b2 anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

[Daniel Cooper]

A broad-spectrum antiviral would be the holy grail. But it's much harder to create broad-spectrum antiviral effects than it is to produce broad-spectrum antibacterial action. We have lots of broad-spectrum antibiotics, but not much in the way of broad-spectrum antivirals.

 
 
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about and have highlighted here before:
 
DRACO

[adamh]

I have noticed that those who have taken the shot tend to get angry if anyone suggests it was a stupid thing to do and will almost certainly harm the individual. This is a natural feature of psychology, no one wants to think they made a horrible life altering mistake. The correct action is to look into what would mitigate the bad effects and salvage one's health. One can do that without totally admitting the shot was poison, but it does require some acknowledgement of the facts on the ground which not everyone wants to do

 

 The more common reaction is anger against the messenger of bad news. Friendships have been lost and even violence has occurred in discussions of this sort. This makes people hesitant to bring up the subject which of course means that even more people will take the shot or another booster since people aren't telling them not to. The media of course covers it all up, they even make it harder to discover if someone was jabbed who suddenly died.

[Hip]

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about and have highlighted here before:
 
DRACO

 

The DRACO project is coming along, after it was taken over by Kimer Med, and renamed VTose. Here is a recent news item about their progress.

 

Edited by Hip, 09 August 2023 - 04:35 AM.

[Hip]

made a horrible life altering mistake

 

I suspect that many of the antivaxers on this forum may be suffering from OCD. People with OCD are notoriously afraid of catching germs; but these are also often very fearful of any chemical or toxin contamination to their body. They have this obsession with bodily purity. 

 

I have a friend with OCD, and he will not take any pharmaceutical drug, because in his ignorance, he erroneously believes that once a drug has entered your body, it will poison and compromise the body for the rest of your life!

 

Is this what you believe, adamh? Do you irrationally believe that once you take any drug or vaccine, your body is irrevocably poisoned? You refer to getting a COVID vaccine as a "horrible life altering mistake", so I wondered if you are OCD about drugs, chemicals and bodily purity?

Edited by Hip, 09 August 2023 - 04:37 AM.

[Hip]

Those who were afraid to take the COVID vaccine during pregnancy and then caught COVID had higher rates of stillbirths.

 

The risk of a stillbirth nearly doubled for those who had COVID-19 during pregnancy compared with those who didn’t.  

 

Doctors discovered that some stillbirths resulted from COVID-19 directly infiltrating the placenta, a condition they named SARS-CoV-2 placentitis.

 

Many pregnant women shunned the COVID vaccine because of COVID vaccine misinformation pollution, which spread like wildfire on social media.

Edited by Hip, 09 August 2023 - 09:03 PM.

[geo12the]

I have noticed that those who have taken the shot tend to get angry if anyone suggests it was a stupid thing to do and will almost certainly harm the individual. This is a natural feature of psychology, no one wants to think they made a horrible life altering mistake. The correct action is to look into what would mitigate the bad effects and salvage one's health. One can do that without totally admitting the shot was poison, but it does require some acknowledgement of the facts on the ground which not everyone wants to do

 

 The more common reaction is anger against the messenger of bad news. Friendships have been lost and even violence has occurred in discussions of this sort. This makes people hesitant to bring up the subject which of course means that even more people will take the shot or another booster since people aren't telling them not to. The media of course covers it all up, they even make it harder to discover if someone was jabbed who suddenly died.

 

Every vaccine has side effects. But the benefits outweigh the risks. I've been vaxed boosted and am happy to have avoided getting seriously ill with COVID. The idea that there is media conspiracy to cover up sudden deaths is a conspiracy theory and many people sadly go down those rabbit holes these days. 

[Daniel Cooper]

Every vaccine has side effects. But the benefits outweigh the risks. I've been vaxed boosted and am happy to have avoided getting seriously ill with COVID. The idea that there is media conspiracy to cover up sudden deaths is a conspiracy theory and many people sadly go down those rabbit holes these days. 

 

You've made a rather sweeping statement in that bolded sentence.

 

Did the benefits outweigh the risk for a 75 year old diabetic early in the pandemic? Almost certainly.

 

Did the benefits outweigh the risk for a healthy 20 year old? Almost certainly not as there was almost no risk from the infection to begin with, so it was almost all vaccine risk vs. a very minor infection risk. Even if the vaccine risks are relatively minor there is no benefit if the risk from the infection were even lower.

 

Did the benefits outweigh the risk for children under 12? Never except in the very rare case for a child with an most unusual situation.

 

Go look in the US and Europe at what percentage of covid death and serious complications where in the 12 and under group.

 

You simply can not make such a sweeping statement in this situation.

[Hip]

Did the benefits outweigh the risk for a healthy 20 year old? Almost certainly not as there was almost no risk from the infection to begin with

 

That is a most untrue statement. I would say that in this pandemic, the issue of death from COVID is secondary to the risk of contracting ME/CFS long COVID. Your risk of developing long COVID is around 1 in 100 each time you catch COVID. So this is a very substantial risk, and having ME/CFS for the rest of your life is worse than being locked up in jail on a life sentence. 

 

I pointed out that long COVID is a far more dire issue in this pandemic multiple times, but the message does not seem to be getting to people here.  

 

Admittedly COVID vaccines do not reduce LC risk by much, only by 30%. But lifelong imprisonment with long COVID is hell, so anything you can do to avoid LC makes sense.

[Dorian Grey]

That is a most untrue statement. I would say that in this pandemic, the issue of death from COVID is secondary to the risk of contracting ME/CFS long COVID. Your risk of developing long COVID is around 1 in 100 each time you catch COVID. So this is a very substantial risk, and having ME/CFS for the rest of your life is worse than being locked up in jail on a life sentence. 

 

I pointed out that long COVID is a far more dire issue in this pandemic multiple times, but the message does not seem to be getting to people here.  

 

Admittedly COVID vaccines do not reduce LC risk by much, only by 30%. But lifelong imprisonment with long COVID is hell, so anything you can do to avoid LC makes sense.

 

Gave you a "good point" Hip; but would like to consider...  Is Long Covid still a major problem with omicron in otherwise healthy people? And has it been shown the boosters are still reducing the rate of LC by 30%?  Is this rate of protection equal for those who've already had COVID, who get it again?  

 

I hate it when we apply old data from pre-omicron, and/or compare protection of boosted to Un-vaxed / never exposed incidence of LC, perhaps ignoring some un-vaxed who might have some residual immunity from previous exposure.  

 

Is this 30% protection from LC recent data?  Or ancient history?  

[Hip]

Gave you a "good point" Hip; but would like to consider...  Is Long Covid still a major problem with omicron in otherwise healthy people? 

 

You asked me this question before, and I provided an answer before. If you remember, I gave you a link which found that the risk of LC from omicron is less than delta. But omicron is more contagious, so infects more people, which may cancel out the lower risk.

 

I am not sure if there is any data for the vaccines' ability to reduce the risk of LC specifically from omicron.

Edited by Hip, 10 August 2023 - 04:45 PM.