Bruddah IZ
DA
Experts don't need an EUA and a mandate to drive demand.
Vaccine
- Thread starter Multi Sport
- Start date
Bruddah IZ
DA
The three stooges are not in demand.
Actually, we’ve had three people on this thread so far who know what they’re talking about. ( You just trash talked one of them. )
In general, they tend not to refer to youtube videos as reference material.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Larry, mo, curly….nope I’m not.
Bruddah IZ
DA
I live in Monterey County, where our county health officer is Dr. Ed Moreno. I have not been a fan, as I’ve mentioned on this blog before, here and here.
But I believe in giving credit where credit is due. So here’s what I wrote in today’s Carmel Pine Cone, which is our best local newspaper.
Dear Editor,
I have not been a fan of Monterey County health officer Dr. Ed Moreno because he has tended to follow the crowd rather than the science.
But in recent weeks, there has been a sea change in his thinking: he justifies his decisions by looking at the data. He recently argued that we don’t need an indoor mask mandate because the case numbers are low, current measures seem to be working, the vaccination rate is high, and even many of the unvaccinated have natural immunity because of earlier Covid infections.
But county supervisor Luis Alejo tried to override Moreno’s judgment with a new county-wide mask mandate. Alejo’s reasoning? He said, “I think we are just trying to resort back to what our public is familiar with, what we have done before.” In other words, let’s not make our decisions based on data or reasoning but, instead, on what we’re used to. That is not, to put it mildly, good reasoning.
Those of us, and there are many, who have been critical of Dr. Moreno should assure him that, this time, we have his back.
David R. Henderson, Pacific Grove
The 5-supervisor board voted this week on whether to override him. They needed a 4-1 vote to impose an emergency 60-day indoor masking requirement. The vote was 3-2 so we’re free of that for now.
My wife called me yesterday when she saw the news announcement about the vote. I couldn’t believe how happy I was about the news.
But I believe in giving credit where credit is due. So here’s what I wrote in today’s Carmel Pine Cone, which is our best local newspaper.
Dear Editor,
I have not been a fan of Monterey County health officer Dr. Ed Moreno because he has tended to follow the crowd rather than the science.
But in recent weeks, there has been a sea change in his thinking: he justifies his decisions by looking at the data. He recently argued that we don’t need an indoor mask mandate because the case numbers are low, current measures seem to be working, the vaccination rate is high, and even many of the unvaccinated have natural immunity because of earlier Covid infections.
But county supervisor Luis Alejo tried to override Moreno’s judgment with a new county-wide mask mandate. Alejo’s reasoning? He said, “I think we are just trying to resort back to what our public is familiar with, what we have done before.” In other words, let’s not make our decisions based on data or reasoning but, instead, on what we’re used to. That is not, to put it mildly, good reasoning.
Those of us, and there are many, who have been critical of Dr. Moreno should assure him that, this time, we have his back.
David R. Henderson, Pacific Grove
The 5-supervisor board voted this week on whether to override him. They needed a 4-1 vote to impose an emergency 60-day indoor masking requirement. The vote was 3-2 so we’re free of that for now.
My wife called me yesterday when she saw the news announcement about the vote. I couldn’t believe how happy I was about the news.
Congrats
You're babbling.
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
My point is that they guy had two papers that were relevant to some of the early work on getting mRNA into cells. I've looked at both of them. Have you? Late 80's early 90's lots of people were working on genetic material transfection technologies. His claim to cred from his 1989 paper is that he encompassed mRNA in a lipidic shell, but it's not like other people weren't doing the same thing with DNA transfections. He made no further contribution to the development of this technology and at some point ended up feeling bitter about it. Now he goes on the TV and rolls down some people's alley, whatever. But just because you think he knows his shit does not mean that he does so.
Roadrunner
SILVER
Check out the Lasker award announcement to see who, among the many many contributors, is being recognized for making key contributions to the mRNA vaccine approach. Hint- Malone is not among them. (And Evil goalie seems to know what he's talking about.)
If you want to learn more about how the mRNA vaccines work, let me know. There's no genetic reprogramming going on. Happy to walk you through it or send you some articles on the underlying science. There's some good stuff posted earlier in this thread too, though who knows how many pages ago..
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
Upon reflection it's harsh of me to say Malone doesn't know his shit. That's not it exactly. It's more like bitterness over a perceived lack of credit and recognition made him lose his shit. He definitely was there in the early RNA days, and, like many, saw the therapeutic potential. Since you mentioned the Lasker I was thinking about that. If you Google Kariko and Malone you'll see there's a bit of a history there that almost certainly feeds into this. Malone thinks he was cheated, but now he's made his mark. I wonder how it feels though, when he's invited on these programs. He comes on "inventor of mRNA vaccines" say his piece, probably still tries to nuance it a bit. Then followed up by next person on the program saying that what he wanted his life work to be about, what he wants to be known for, is all a sham, a lie, or this, that or the other thing. Textbook pathos.
I personally think these big awards like Lasker, etc do more harm than good anymore. Like giving the Lasker to the mRNA nucleotide modification people to prevent triggering innate immunity `but not the the LNP people. Like you say, so many contributed, everything necessarily collaborative. So many different facets, all have to be in place. I remember Gary Ruvkun's Lasker talk for his miRNA work; perhaps when done like that it still works. He was basically, nothing really special about me per se, its the process and the underlying biology. So amazing. If it triggers for somebody, takes the next step, all that matters.
thirteenknots
SILVER ELITE
Mr Roadrunner:
Please explain to the forum your reasoning for making false statements about
mRna, it does reprogram the adaptive and innate immune responses.
And I noticed NOT one of you touched on the accountability/liability issue.
Furthermore, if the products are performing as they state they are, why the
breakthrough sicknesses.
If the breakthrough sicknesses are part of the “ process “ why is the VAERS
site severely altering/deleting Data.
Dr Roadrunner:
Please walk me through the Medical Data papers you have access to that
counter the Medical Data papers I have access to.
Bruddah IZ
DA
That's none of your business, actually
Somewhere along the way, was it World War I, the creation of the Fed, the destruction of academia? – we stood the logic of American life on its head. If anybody anywhere offends, or otherwise causes harm, if anybody has access to something others don’t, if anybody holds a thought not in step with his fellows, the aggrieved must assemble as many cronies and allies as possible, and then snitch, fire, steal, mandate, imprison or ultimately kill those who have the nerve to disagree. There can be no mercy for wrong thinkers, for the climate deniers or the anti-vaxxers. There can be no tolerance for those who don’t embrace the Lord, unquestionably respect the life of an embryo, or see the words of Trump as the golden ticket to a proud future.
In short, we have a desire to rule, a desire to dominate others. The pandemic, says Michael Malice, has been the perfect setting for neurotic and low-status people to dominate – to assert moral and physical force – over the rest of us. Another pariah of the establishment, Joe Rogan, in a conversation with Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein (two ultra-pariahs of the ruling class) called the Karens and the wrath-seekers “the weakest minds, and the most cowardly amongst us.”
Somewhere along the way, was it World War I, the creation of the Fed, the destruction of academia? – we stood the logic of American life on its head. If anybody anywhere offends, or otherwise causes harm, if anybody has access to something others don’t, if anybody holds a thought not in step with his fellows, the aggrieved must assemble as many cronies and allies as possible, and then snitch, fire, steal, mandate, imprison or ultimately kill those who have the nerve to disagree. There can be no mercy for wrong thinkers, for the climate deniers or the anti-vaxxers. There can be no tolerance for those who don’t embrace the Lord, unquestionably respect the life of an embryo, or see the words of Trump as the golden ticket to a proud future.
In short, we have a desire to rule, a desire to dominate others. The pandemic, says Michael Malice, has been the perfect setting for neurotic and low-status people to dominate – to assert moral and physical force – over the rest of us. Another pariah of the establishment, Joe Rogan, in a conversation with Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein (two ultra-pariahs of the ruling class) called the Karens and the wrath-seekers “the weakest minds, and the most cowardly amongst us.”
Bruddah IZ
DA
...cont:
What prompted this reflection was, oddly and illustratively enough, Sarah O’Conner’s discussion in the Financial Times on Universal Basic Income, which is the idea that a government, out of general revenue, can and should afford every citizen a basic livelihood. She doesn’t like it, but for all the wrong reasons:
“If a UBI let employers off the hook entirely from the idea that a job should be something a person can live on, it could make it easier to hire people for fewer hours on a casual or fleeting basis. […] There is a danger in seeing job insecurity as an inevitability to which we must adapt, when in some cases it is simply a regulatory failure to which we should respond.”
There are three problems here that relate to the way we look at economic and political relations in the 2020s.
First, what other people do and the transactions they make are no one’s business but their own. Letting “employers off the hook,” or saying that “a job should be something a person can live on” is entirely detached from the way a liberal, free society orients itself. These things are the business of the people making those transactions,and no one else’s.
Second, “pay” isn’t something that employers, by virtue of being rich, entrepreneurial, or profit-seeking rightfully owe anyone. Pay is owed as a result of contracts made between employers and workers. These are an outcome of trade. Workers provide value for their employers, who in turn pay wages at an agreed-upon rate. That a third-party observer disagrees with the valuation made by either party is beside the point.
Third, the “job insecurity,” the “we must adapt,” and “regulatory failure” canards indicate an urge toward central-planning that is almost always unwarranted. Many libertarians correctly object that governments are in no position to make such determinations. Government functionaries have poor information and inadequate enforcement mechanisms to will their visions into reality. In the end, they tend to make matters worse everywhere they act.
While O’Connor misses this view in the narrow topic of UBI, the conflict isn’t over that specific policy proposal, or even about vaccine mandates. It’s not about the politics surrounding abortion or immigration or foreign policy. It’s not about issues of health or eating habits, about sexuality or workout routines. Those are all downstream from the much bigger, and much deeper question: For what purposes may societies condone the use of violent force?
The answer is many fewer than most people presently believe. Because most things are simply none of the government’s business.
What prompted this reflection was, oddly and illustratively enough, Sarah O’Conner’s discussion in the Financial Times on Universal Basic Income, which is the idea that a government, out of general revenue, can and should afford every citizen a basic livelihood. She doesn’t like it, but for all the wrong reasons:
“If a UBI let employers off the hook entirely from the idea that a job should be something a person can live on, it could make it easier to hire people for fewer hours on a casual or fleeting basis. […] There is a danger in seeing job insecurity as an inevitability to which we must adapt, when in some cases it is simply a regulatory failure to which we should respond.”
There are three problems here that relate to the way we look at economic and political relations in the 2020s.
First, what other people do and the transactions they make are no one’s business but their own. Letting “employers off the hook,” or saying that “a job should be something a person can live on” is entirely detached from the way a liberal, free society orients itself. These things are the business of the people making those transactions,and no one else’s.
Second, “pay” isn’t something that employers, by virtue of being rich, entrepreneurial, or profit-seeking rightfully owe anyone. Pay is owed as a result of contracts made between employers and workers. These are an outcome of trade. Workers provide value for their employers, who in turn pay wages at an agreed-upon rate. That a third-party observer disagrees with the valuation made by either party is beside the point.
Third, the “job insecurity,” the “we must adapt,” and “regulatory failure” canards indicate an urge toward central-planning that is almost always unwarranted. Many libertarians correctly object that governments are in no position to make such determinations. Government functionaries have poor information and inadequate enforcement mechanisms to will their visions into reality. In the end, they tend to make matters worse everywhere they act.
While O’Connor misses this view in the narrow topic of UBI, the conflict isn’t over that specific policy proposal, or even about vaccine mandates. It’s not about the politics surrounding abortion or immigration or foreign policy. It’s not about issues of health or eating habits, about sexuality or workout routines. Those are all downstream from the much bigger, and much deeper question: For what purposes may societies condone the use of violent force?
The answer is many fewer than most people presently believe. Because most things are simply none of the government’s business.
Roadrunner
SILVER
Yeah, I agree with you that it's usually hard to just single out a couple people for awards like the Lasker. Which discoveries get recognized, who gets credit for which contributions, .. can easily overlook many many people. And not everyone gives credit where it is due.
Roadrunner
SILVER
It sounds like what you're really interested in is understanding the immune system, and how it responds to pathogens. It is an amazing system. Do you understand what Messenger RNAs (mRNA) are and their function?
I have no interest in some pissing match of "my papers are better than your papers". That's odd to me. I prefer to keep the focus on the science and the data.