The entire CDC Vaccine Advisory Panel has been fired.

[lyra]

Thank you @missy . I read all of your informative medical posts. I'm currently considering getting. my summer vax this year. It's spreading a lot where I am right now.

 

[missy]

Thank you @missy . I read all of your informative medical posts. I'm currently considering getting. my summer vax this year. It's spreading a lot where I am right now.

Stay well Lyra. Sending so many good wishes your way

 

[Matata]

Science and medicine are fallible. Covid caught the US by surprise. Pharma scrambled to find a way to lessen covid's effects while at the same time learning how the virus worked. The virus was a moving target. It was difficult to determine who was dying from covid and who was dying from co morbidities. To interpret the rapidly changing information during the pandemic as lies is....something.

There are video interviews of CEO and higher ups in these companies that made some of the vaxxes and they are being asked if they took it, go see what they said.

It's your responsibility as a participant in a discussion/debate to provide evidence of your claims; otherwise, your posts are just a scroll by.

 

[jaaron]

There are video interviews of CEO and higher ups in these companies that made some of the vaxxes and they are being asked if they took it, go see what they said.

@Gloria27 Do you have a source for this? If you are referring to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, please note that his quote was taken out of context and the claim is untrue. Please fact check this.

And for anyone who wants a covid vaccine but is hesitant about the mrna platform, please look at the Novavax shot, which is a traditional vaccine and very effective.

I wonder how many sceptics would refuse the (probably now out of development) mrna shot if they or one of their loved ones had pancreatic cancer?

 

[Gloria27]

There are video interviews of CEO and higher ups in these companies that made some of the vaxxes and they are being asked if they took it, go see what they said.

@Gloria27 Do you have a source for this? If you are referring to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, please note that his quote was taken out of context and the claim is untrue. Please fact check this.

And for anyone who wants a covid vaccine but is hesitant about the mrna platform, please look at the Novavax shot, which is a traditional vaccine and very effective.

I wonder how many sceptics would refuse the (probably now out of development) mrna shot if they or one of their loved ones had pancreatic cancer?

Covid had a very low risk of mortality for my age bracket, why would I risk myocarditis and potential future health problems from the jab?
Being under a death sentence (pancreatic cancer which has no cure) is a "I have nothing to lose" situation, totally different. So no, I would not refuse the gene therapy, of course not.
Had covid twice, no long covid, my choice made sense for myself.
I am all for "my body my choice" but the jabs were mandated, that is the problem.
We are all different, same treatment doesn't work the same for everybody and the jab had some horrendous side effects and even death for some. Too risky in my opinion, and my opinion does not extend beyond my own person, part of my family took it.

I did not save the video, it was so long ago, more than a year.

 

[Lookinagain]

@Gloria27 Do you have a source for this? If you are referring to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, please note that his quote was taken out of context and the claim is untrue. Please fact check this.

I just fact checked this and yes, it says he was vaccinated and there is a social media post of his with a photo showing him getting an injection, with a comment about it being the vaccine.

 

[LightBright]

Missy, thanks for your thoughtful reply with links to back up your statements. However, just because the mRNA idea was invented sixty years ago doesn’t mean there were clinical trials done demonstrating the safety and efficacy of “vaccination” with LNP mRNA for preventing viral disease before our government and the fired Advisory Board rushed the approvals.

I should say, that rushing the approvals was not unreasonable given what we did know. Mandating the vaccines was wrong. (The Advisory Board did not make that decision but they did put the mRNA COVID vaccine on the childhood schedule).

The entire world were the test subjects.

AFAIK there had never been proper clinical trials on the mRNA technology being used to prevent viral disease, prior to this trial and then global launch. The adenoviral vector technology was shown to fail when it was trialed. (Look up the African HIV Trials that failed).

You are speaking in generalities that mRNA vaccines are safe for all. Please review Dr. Akiko Iwasaki’s research at Yale. Or visit any Long COVID chat group. At least 20% were vaccine injured. And for the novel risk, these are non sterilizing and only confer temporary immunity (months not years), requiring yearly boosters.

We can split hairs all day. But bottom line I feel you are generalizing about safety (yes it’s been “very safe” for some people I know) and I’m not impressed with six months of robust antibodies which then require a booster.

As for the people that are calling me a liar, that’s a radical technique used to shut down dissent, I don’t respect that. Assertions that I’m moving the goal posts well… the goal posts were moved in the sloppy clinical trial that studied two months versus two years because they vaccinated the placebo group, and a Process Two global launch of the formula which was not reflected in the original clinical trials. Please look up the differences between Process One which was studied and Process Two which was mandated.

I’m fine with the concept of available vaccines and I’m happy that the FDA has removed the adenoviral vector vaccine which quantifiably injured recipients to the point they were removed, and revised its advisory to recommend mRNA COVID vaccines to over 65 and those with health risks, but not mandated for school children like the previous panel tolerated. Thank goodness for common sense.

 

[missy]

@LightBright I do not think you are a liar. Never did. You are a lovely person and I always appreciate your input.
I am speaking in generalities but never said the mrna vaccines are safe for all. Just most. As with all vaccines there is a (small) segment of the population who will experience adverse effects. Sometimes severe.

There has been too much misinformation about vaccines in general (yes speaking in generalities again) and many (not you) want to villianize vaccines. Vaccines are life saving.

My sister has long Covid and it is no joke. She got the first two vaccines but not the others and she got covid twice (or three times) and now she is dealing with repercussions.

Very few vaccines are forever and many require a booster. And some require more than one booster. That is not unusual.
For example the shingles vaccine i(series of two) s not viable forever. Neither is the influenza vaccine. Both, IMO, important vaccines.

And if you do not like the mrna technology there is always Novavax


I am in a rush right now but if I remember and have the energy I will search for available studies to share at another time.

 

[missy]

Thank goodness for common sense.

One more thing. I do not believe common sense is prevailing here and my prediction is we will see a return of diseases previously eradicated with vaccines. One example- Measles is back. I shudder to think about small pox and polio returning. Vaccines for school age children for certain diseases should be mandated because not everyone uses common sense. One thing about common sense. It is not as common as one would think

 

[Matata]

The numero uno question is what is our obligation, as individual members of a society with agency over own bodies (unless you're a woman), to protect others? Hypothetically, if the next pandemic has a 95% mortality rate across the entire age spectrum and a vaccine becomes available, do we wait 2 years for clinical trials and several years for longitudinal studies before we mandate a vaccine while millions to billions of people die because there might be an unpleasant side effect.

 

[Gloria27]

The numero uno question is what is our obligation, as individual members of a society with agency over own bodies (unless you're a woman), to protect others? Hypothetically, if the next pandemic has a 95% mortality rate across the entire age spectrum and a vaccine becomes available, do we wait 2 years for clinical trials and several years for longitudinal studies before we mandate a vaccine while millions to billions of people die because there might be an unpleasant side effect.

95% mortality? that is a literal apocalypse aka collapse of all civilization, and the few people that survive will go back to sticks and stones IF the world doesn't blow up because who the heck is maintaining the nuclear reactors etc...

Let me ask you this, who is now paying for those injured by the covid vax? nobody!!! not you, not me, nobody is! most are being medically gaslighted, lost everything and are effed for life now waiting for gov handouts to survive another day

so let's get back to you do you

the vax din not stop the spread, it was never tested for it, it was all lies but it came out eventually because truth always does


btw, if a virus with 20% mortality rate becomes the next world pandemic it can be the end of civilization as we know it, covid wasn't even close at 0.4%

 

[Matata]

95% mortality? that is a literal apocalypse aka collapse of all civilization, and the few people that survive will go back to sticks and stones IF the world doesn't blow up because who the heck is maintaining the nuclear reactors etc...

Let me ask you this, who is now paying for those injured by the covid vax? nobody!!! not you, not me, nobody is! most are being medically gaslighted, lost everything and are effed for life now waiting for gov handouts to survive another day

so let's get back to you do you

the vax din not stop the spread, it was never tested for it, it was all lies but it came out eventually because truth always does

The bubonic plague wiped out between 30%-60% of Europe's population. Apocalyptic.

So to reiterate, claims without evidence from credible sources (ie scientific method yielding repeatable outcomes) = it didn't happen. I'm not saying that what you claim isn't true at least in part but when all I can think of are questions -- How many were injured by the vaccine vs how many weren't? How many allegedly injured were totally incapacitated? How was it determined that the injury was solely due to the vaccine? -- without any hint of answers from the claimant, then I disregard the claim.

 

[Gloria27]

The bubonic plague wiped out between 30%-60% of Europe's population. Apocalyptic.

So to reiterate, claims without evidence from credible sources (ie scientific method yielding repeatable outcomes) = it didn't happen. I'm not saying that what you claim isn't true at least in part but when all I can think of are questions -- How many were injured by the vaccine vs how many weren't? How many allegedly injured were totally incapacitated? How was it determined that the injury was solely due to the vaccine? -- without any hint of answers from the claimant, then I disregard the claim.

The bubonic plague does not compare, different time, different technology, different everything. Now, most people live in flat and buy everything from the supermarket using a card, just think of a major blackout, total chaos.

I edited the name of a person in a shocking case, I won't be posting it, it's not my
job.

You can disregard whatever you want, I have nothing else to say.

 

[jaaron]

Covid had a very low risk of mortality for my age bracket, why would I risk myocarditis and potential future health problems from the jab?
Being under a death sentence (pancreatic cancer which has no cure) is a "I have nothing to lose" situation, totally different. So no, I would not refuse the gene therapy, of course not.
Had covid twice, no long covid, my choice made sense for myself.
I am all for "my body my choice" but the jabs were mandated, that is the problem.
We are all different, same treatment doesn't work the same for everybody and the jab had some horrendous side effects and even death for some. Too risky in my opinion, and my opinion does not extend beyond my own person, part of my family took it.

I did not save the video, it was so long ago, more than a year.

You've given a reply to a question I didn't ask, but danced around replying to the one I did ask. You said, citing as support for your argument:

There are video interviews of CEO and higher ups in these companies that made some of the vaxxes and they are being asked if they took it, go see what they said.

When I asked about the video in question, pointing out that the 'fact' you cited has been widely debunked, you brushed it off saying you did not save it. You seem therefore to have formed your position based, partially at least, on false information.

Incidentally, the risk of developing myocarditis following the vaccine is 3.2% vs 18.3% following infection with covid 19. Yes, your body your choice, but you might want to be smart enough to do the math when assessing risks.

Ok, off to look at bling. Have a nice night all

 

[missy]

Some more links explaining mrna technology and development for anyone who might be interested
MRNA was not new technology and while it took time (due to manufacturing challenges and other issues to overcome outlined in the links) it is a lifesaving technology and potentially can be applied to many other diseases

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1521661624005333

mRNA vaccines in disease prevention and treatment - Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy

mRNA vaccines have emerged as highly effective strategies in the prophylaxis and treatment of diseases, thanks largely although not totally to their extraordinary performance in recent years against the worldwide plague COVID-19. The huge superiority of mRNA vaccines regarding their efficacy...

www.nature.com

These go into the drawbacks of mrna technology but also the reason this technology is important.

Mrna technology has proven important and effective and ongoing trials have expanded. Potentially helpful for cancer treatment.
And the years of the Covid pandemic has helped provide data with which to improve this technology
I find this to be exciting and hope I think it will prove to be very beneficial

Clinical advances and ongoing trials of mRNA vaccines for cancer treatment - PMC

Years of research exploring mRNA vaccines for cancer treatment in preclinical and clinical trials have set the stage for the rapid development of mRNA vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therapeutic cancer vaccines based on mRNA are well ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

And other fields of research with mrna technology

https://www.goodrx.com/health-topic/vaccines/other-mrna-vaccines?srsltid=AfmBOorsghN4U6mA_pzpgUd4v5yDzXQIIpLdclkm3ZhsysNgNxnq1jKO

"The COVID-19 vaccines have shown that mRNA technology can be effective in vaccines. Because of this, companies are testing it for many other applications. In some cases, they may even offer hope where other vaccines have been unsuccessful, like with HIV."
Phases clinical trials go through and how vaccines are approved

How Vaccines are Developed and Approved for Use

Learn how vaccines are developed and approved for use.

www.cdc.gov

COVID-19 Vaccine Basics

Learn how COVID-19 vaccines help our bodies develop immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19.

www.cdc.gov

A graph illustrating the history of mrna vaccines

The tangled history of mRNA vaccines

Hundreds of scientists had worked on mRNA vaccines for decades before the coronavirus pandemic brought a breakthrough.

www.nature.com

 

[seaurchin]

How about you worry about yourself and not what other people think and do with their bodies.

My body my choice, riiiight?

I didn't realize that pregnancy was contagious. And the mocking and denigrating of women's most fundamental rights your statement above is infested with, that's such a big, beautiful bonus!

Please apply to the new and improved CDC right away. I'm sure they will recognize and appreciate your expertise in a way that so few here seem capable of.

 

[seaurchin]

I edited the name of a person in a shocking case, I won't be posting it, it's not my
job.

Did you mean to say you edited your post when provided with evidence that it wasn't true? Is that your job?

 

[Matata]

Did you mean to say you edited your post when provided with evidence that it wasn't true? Is that your job?

I looked up the case before she edited her post. The parents enrolled the girl and her 2 brothers in a clinical trial testing the Pfizer vaccine for 12-15 yr. olds. She had a severe reaction after the 2nd dose and the parents allege that Pfizer and the government tried to cover it up and didn't try to determine if there was a pre-existing condition that caused the severe reaction so others could be warned not to vaccinate their kids with the same condition. The brothers were fine.

Medicine that is supposed to help you can also harm you.

 

[Lookinagain]

Medicine that is supposed to help you can also harm you.

Of course, and I don't think anyone assumes no one can have an adverse reaction to any vaccines. I have a friend who had an adverse reaction to the shingles vaccine. It happens. But I think most of us understand this and also acknowledge that more people tolerate them, than not. I'm grateful to be able to try to protect myself from some of these illnesses.

 

[seaurchin]

Of course, and I don't think anyone assumes no one can have an adverse reaction to any vaccines. I have a friend who had an adverse reaction to the shingles vaccine. It happens. But I think most of us understand this and also acknowledge that more people tolerate them, than not. I'm grateful to be able to try to protect myself from some of these illnesses.

I totally agree, with all of that.

Also, going back to my earlier post, a volunteer making an allegation about their child's experience in a clinical trial, while definitely warranting a closer look, shouldn't be misrepresented as being more than it actually is, which isn't much.

 

[Matata]

Of course, and I don't think anyone assumes no one can have an adverse reaction to any vaccines.

Apparently Gloria thinks it shouldn't happen. She didn't mention that the girl's parents volunteered all 3 of their children to participate in the trial so they were obviously willing to put their children at some risk.

 

[Gloria27]

Did you mean to say you edited your post when provided with evidence that it wasn't true? Is that your job?

Edited my post because it was about a child that was injured in the vaccine trials. Nothing untrue about it, it just proves how people will get treated once injured, nobody will care (not only that but the vaccine was shared with the world and continued to injure people in the thousands) the world will move on and the person will forever be disabled/life destroyed.

It's not my job to do research for you or to prove anything, you can take all the jabs you want, I don't actually care about what you do or think.

I'm not into trials and experiments and would not subject myself willingly to such things.

 

[telephone89]

Edited my post because it was about a child that was injured in the vaccine trials. Nothing untrue about it, it just proves how people will get treated once injured, nobody will care (not only that but the vaccine was shared with the world and continued to injure people in the thousands) the world will move on and the person will forever be disabled/life destroyed.

It's not my job to do research for you or to prove anything, you can take all the jabs you want, I don't actually care about what you do or think.

I'm not into trials and experiments and would not subject myself willingly to such things.

So is it that you don't approve of trials and experiments, or that they were done improperly or that they weren't done for long enough or or or? You liked a post on pg 1 that stated false information regarding vaccine trials, but it was that they werent tested enough. Now you admonish trials and experiments. Which is it? Should we test vaccines or not? You seem to talk out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[Rockdiamond]

It’s become painfully obvious that there’s a basic difference in perception.
Each side is unwilling to consider the other side’s position.
I myself fall into this trap.
We’re not going to agree on basic facts. Let’s take that as a given. So how is communication possible?

 

[Matata]

Each side is unwilling to consider the other side’s position.

False. What is at issue is the accuracy of statements. When claims are made that resemble, in part, conspiracy theories, people ask for proof or links to sources backing up the statements. Debate components: quality of argument, clarity of presentation, ability to address the opposition, and strength of evidence presented. That's the issue here not unwillingness to consider the other side's position.

 

[seaurchin]

...

False. What is at issue is the accuracy of statements. When claims are made that resemble, in part, conspiracy theories, people ask for proof or links to sources backing up the statements. Debate components: quality of argument, clarity of presentation, ability to address the opposition, and strength of evidence presented. That's the issue here not unwillingness to consider the other side's position.

Exactly. Some things are a matter of personal opinion; other things are not.

I know of a site about unsolved crimes, Websleuths, that I think does a pretty good job of getting at the truth.

The rules are clear, strict, and fairly well enforced.

If you make a claim and anyone asks you for a source to back up your statement, you must provide it. If it's not deemed by the administrators as a trustworthy source, that will be pointed out. The person who is rightly called out then has to accept that. They aren't allowed to argue.

People who have credentials in a particular field or personal knowledge (for ex. they live next door to a crime scene or are family of them or otherwise would have insider info.) can privately provide proof of it to the administrators. Then they then get a little badge under their screen name, stating that they are a police officer, attorney, family member or whatever.

Of course, even then it's not perfect but there are some fabulous discussions because people aren't allowed to blather BS or otherwise troll. People who are on there generally want to learn. If not, they don't last long.

Opinions are allowed but generally followed by "MOO" (My Opinion Only). And opinions have to be on things that are actually opinion issues. For ex. you couldn't post a false "fact" and then claim it is "MOO."

They have heavy moderation, though. I don't know if it would be possible on a voluntary "agreeing to the rules" basis.

 

[Matata]

Edited my post because it was about a child that was injured in the vaccine trials.

Whose parents are/were all over social media and in the news about their daughter's situation. No need to edit her name for privacy reasons if that was your concern.

Nothing untrue about it, it just proves how people will get treated once injured, nobody will care (not only that but the vaccine was shared with the world and continued to injure people in the thousands) the world will move on and the person will forever be disabled/life destroyed.

People injured by the thousands (where's your data?) versus how many saved? This one case does not prove how all people will get treated once injured. It shows how this one person was treated and it's a one-sided story. Pfizer is mum on the issue because -- lawsuits.

The bigger picture is that pharma and the medical community were doing their best to combat and fight the spread of a highly communicable rapidly spreading disease with a scary mortality rate. Is it possible that Pfizer and other big pharma buried negative results of some clinical trials, yes. Was their motivation for doing so noble or selfish. My guess is it was both in varying degrees.

I read an article about a year ago by an oncologist who said that all of his patients who died did not die of their cancers but from the treatments. He provided data from hundreds of autopsies as evidence. People still choose treatments that might provide a cure or extend their lives in spite of the risks and side effects. Researchers and medical providers are not miracle workers but they do the best they can with what they know at the time and they continue to educate themselves as new information comes along.

 

[Matata]

It's not my job to do research for you or to prove anything, you can take all the jabs you want, I don't actually care about what you do or think.

You keep resisting that you have responsibility to provide sources when you make blanket statements but that does not negate your responsibility. I can blow opinions out my rear end all day long and all it does is fill the space with hot air. If I want to be taken seriously it's my responsibility to provide data to prove my points. You must actually care what people think or you wouldn't have entered the discussion and then become belligerent when challenged which could have been avoided if you had not presented some of your opinions as unimpeachable facts.

And none of us are off the hook even when we do provide backup for our arguments. When a subject is important to me, I go to the effort of reading the research, determining if the source is credible, looking for weaknesses in the methodology, and finding out who funded it. All of that has an impact on the results and credibility of studies because experts can be bought by people who want to achieve particular agendas.

 

[Lookinagain]

it just proves how people will get treated once injured, nobody will care

Not being heartless, I don't think, but if you volunteer for a trial, you know it's a risk, and sign a waiver. If you don't want the risk, you don't enter the trial. It's not that no one cares, it is that it is an assumed risk. They were willing to risk their children and it didn't turn out for one of them. But they made that gamble, and unfortunately lost. Same as if you get behind the wheel of a car or get in an airplane. Bad things can happen, but it's rare and generally safe for most. It's a risk you choose to take.
And was it really the drug company's duty to determine if the child had an autoimmune disease? Does everyone who submits to a trial have to go through a battery of tests for goodness knows what before they are part of study? Nothing would ever get tested.

 

[Gloria27]

It’s become painfully obvious that there’s a basic difference in perception.
Each side is unwilling to consider the other side’s position.
I myself fall into this trap.
We’re not going to agree on basic facts. Let’s take that as a given. So how is communication possible?

I've noticed this too but let me say this: I wasn't against it at first, just waited to see what happens after some people took it and completely decided against it when it was pushed hard and mandated.

IMO it's not worth the risk. Why?

1. no long term immunity from it, always needs a booster and that means immune system fatigue, IGG4 antibodies, T-cell depletion, nah... (plenty of studies on official channels about this, you just have to want to understand)
2. doesn't stop transmission at all, every time I got it, it was always from the vaxxed!
3. the risk increases with every dose, we can see this from the injuries, most of the damage was done with the second dose

The virus itself did the same, to me it seemed a bit worse the second time I got it, still it was like a cold/flu. A close friend has had two doses, she got the virus a lot more than two times, she works in a hospital, always gets levelled by this virus and she always catches it. I know genetics play a part, there are people that never get sick and have the shot or don't have it. I did not see the benefits for MYSELF, instead I saw the possible horrendous side-effects and unknown long term issues, I'll pass.

You keep resisting that you have responsibility to provide sources when you make blanket statements but that does not negate your responsibility. I can blow opinions out my rear end all day long and all it does is fill the space with hot air. If I want to be taken seriously it's my responsibility to provide data to prove my points. You must actually care what people think or you wouldn't have entered the discussion and then become belligerent when challenged which could have been avoided if you had not presented some of your opinions as unimpeachable facts.

And none of us are off the hook even when we do provide backup for our arguments. When a subject is important to me, I go to the effort of reading the research, determining if the source is credible, looking for weaknesses in the methodology, and finding out who funded it. All of that has an impact on the results and credibility of studies because experts can be bought by people who want to achieve particular agendas.

Absolutely!

Bingo! and who made money from the pandemic, the vax companies, thank you!