Nm
- Thread starter KNIGHTTIME^
- Start date
Is it a 3rd shot that is actually required in their studies?
I.e., do they have the trails to back this up?
Or is it just the hope?
I mean, they are now just starting to study it as of February.
But this means 3 shots every year.
Also remember ... they weren't allowed to make a profit on the first 2.
There are fiscal incentives at play here, and no, that's not being facetious and it's not conspiracy.
E.g., Over in the UK's, US and EK-based pharma regularly gets the NHS to add additional shots not in the US FDA schedules, especially for kids -- it's +50% profit.
www.nbcnews.com
I.e., do they have the trails to back this up?
Or is it just the hope?
I mean, they are now just starting to study it as of February.
But this means 3 shots every year.
Also remember ... they weren't allowed to make a profit on the first 2.
There are fiscal incentives at play here, and no, that's not being facetious and it's not conspiracy.
E.g., Over in the UK's, US and EK-based pharma regularly gets the NHS to add additional shots not in the US FDA schedules, especially for kids -- it's +50% profit.
A third Pfizer dose? The Covid-19 vaccine maker is studying booster shots.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla spoke with NBC News' Lester Holt about the next steps for the company's Covid-19 vaccine.
www.nbcnews.com
Oh, that's easy, it's diminishing returns.
Furthermore, it's really 6 shots for 2 years, 9 shots for 3 years, etc...
I.e., 2 shots within 3 weeks get 4-6 months.
This is a 3rd shot at 6 months ... to allegedly get 12 months.
So, again ...
- Fall #1: 1-2 shots over 3 weeks during fall, 3rd shot mid-winter ... covers until 2nd fall
- Fall #2: 1-2 shots again over 3 weeks during 2nd fall, 3rd shot mid-2nd winter ... covers until 3rd fall
- Fall #3: 1-2 shots again over 3 weeks during fall, 3rd shot mid-3rd winter ... covers until 4th fall
- Etc...
Studies....LOL. It’s Pfizer. They have a history of outright fraud when it comes to their studies. Ignoring how they lied to families that trusted them in Nigeria, which ended up killing up to 50 children and hurting many more, they have paid the single highest fraud penalty in the history of the U.S.Is it a 3rd shot that is actually required in their studies?
I.e., do they have the trails to back this up?
Or is it just the hope?
I mean, they are now just starting to study it as of February.
But this means 3 shots every year.
Also remember ... they weren't allowed to make a profit on the first 2.
There are fiscal incentives at play here, and no, that's not being facetious and it's not conspiracy.
E.g., Over in the UK's, US and EK-based pharma regularly gets the NHS to add additional shots not in the US FDA schedules, especially for kids -- it's +50% profit.
A third Pfizer dose? The Covid-19 vaccine maker is studying booster shots.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla spoke with NBC News' Lester Holt about the next steps for the company's Covid-19 vaccine.
How they got put into a position where they are treated as savior is almost inexplicable. Maybe when someone like Bill Gates invests in your company you get special treatment. Who knows?
To be objective, I wasn't going to touch Africa. Yeah ... pharma has a piss-poor history of 'maintaining standards' in 3rd world countries. Especially when they are subsidized by 3rd parties.
I.e., African commonly gets sub-standard yields already, and if refrigeration is required atop of that ... yeah. It just compounds.
So we have to be careful not to apply their ... how can I say it ... 'less than considerate' approach in Africa, to the US..
Oh, I take a lot of issue with Gates, and not just because of Microsoft. He is the kind of 'do as I say, not do as I do' and advocating a lot of 'control.'
Last edited:
Oh, is that how it works? One shot=600k lives saved. Sweet.
Getting rushed experimental gene therapy from a company that doesn’t mind lying to consumers to increase profit isn’t my idea of a good time. I’ll probably be forced to get it in the future, but for now I’ll just keep my vitamin D levels up.
Let me get this straight: the Feds put a halt on the J&J vaccine because a grand total of 6 women got blood clots out of the 6.7 million people who'd been given the vaccine.
But we're to believe this same government is rushing the vaccines to the public in order to increase corporate profits??!?
Because all the vaccines are unapproved, and still under Emergency Use. It will be years before any are generally approved and well understood. Other than the immediate side effects, which are fairly well understood and seemingly no worse than any other, common vaccines with similar components, we just don't know the longer-term risk factors.
And if the EMA leak (Pfizer) is to be believed, and as it's very common the case, the initial and, in some cases, continued, vials -- in volume -- are sub-standard -- compared to the quality in the trials -- because yields are low. That's typically allowed in Emergency Use, especially for high risk candidates. But as the risk levels of the target candidates go down, they want standards to come up.
6 clearly related, ages 18-48, not the elderly. These are clear outliers, and they believe there may be far more. But they have these 6 that are clearly related, and are focusing on them to try to find out the risk factor.
There are other vaccines on the market for people to consider then.
BTW, there were actually tens of thousands of serious side effects in VEARS for the first several million, and even just at 12M of the mRNA, there were close to 1,000 coincidental deaths. Hank Aaron was one of the biggests. They believe he had a risk factor that was undetected, but for reasons of privacy (even though he was quite public about getting the vaccine), they have not released that info (just 'natural causes' -- which can be accelerated by anything introduced to the body).
You guys really don't follow the US FDA approval process much, do you? This is not atypical at all -- e.g., one of the HPV vaccines got halted as well, and that was only over 600 VEARS reported deaths (although they were all kids). It's about finding risk factors. And yes, every vaccine has risk factors. It's just that most are so low and rare.
The key is the US FDA is trying to correlate the risk factors. Let me say that again, the US FDA is trying to correlate the individual risk factors. The US CDC isn't concerned with the individual, but the nation. That's why I only listen to the FDA, not the CDC.
No, the government has nothing to do with that. The Pharmas put aside profits for the initial runs. They will make a profit later, which is what some debate. Some accuse Trump of allowing such. Others feel the Democrats will be just as ready to let them profit. I don't get into that debate. Both administrations had a lot of hard choices to make.
The debate is huge in the UK NHS because some Pharmas are doing extra vaccines, even younger, for added profit, whereas the US FDA says what is happening in the UK NHS is unsafe. I now have 2 colleagues with young daughters that have had serious side effects from getting the 'new schedule' of added injections. Over in the UK, the NHS can take away licenses for merely questioning, unlike here in the US.
In any case, the US FDA will NOT 'rush' it for corporate profits. They won't. The US FDA is trusted for a reason. I'm sure there is some 'industry friendliness,' but it's not like people demonize it.
Which is why NOT one, single vaccine is approved ... yet. There are just different authorizations for different cases of Emergency Use.
Even though I'm a big, initial skeptic of the mRNA vaccines, and have my doubts with the Adenovirus as well, the 'gene therapy' and other 'demonizations' aren't helpful.
In the end, mRNA is how we're going to attack most viruses, more than likely. We're just in our infancy with them.
Even Adenovirus types have their limitations, and in some cases, make one more suspetible to the virus (HIV is one in a subset, but significant, 3-5%).
They aren't really 'gene therapy.' That's just a harsh demonization that shouldn't be used.
Well, that same government has joint ownership of the patent used to produce the Moderna vaccine. They, being the NIH, signed a joint agreement in December of 2019, I’ll ignore the convenient timing, to produce MRNA Coronavirus vaccines. There are heavy financial kickbacks here.
J&J was probably not halted because of 6 women, they are it giving the full reason, but it is convenient that only MRNA vaccines are left, of which the NIH owns a patent. This last paragraph is knowingly conspiratorial, so grain of say that one.
Okay, this is a really good graphic from the UK's Sun about the Astrazeneca Adenovirus, which is a same type (but different Adenovirusused) as the J&J here in the US.
This is exactly what I've been warning about as we go younger and younger.
The statistics on the benefits are not remotely as good (note the 20-29), as we haven't nailed down the known risk factors in various vaccines.
Vaccines are about risk-reward. The reward is usually great, and the risk not only extremely low, but well known. Here, we don't know, and even these statistics are subject to change.
But for now, it's enough to yank. The same thing happened with one HPV vaccine early on, with healthy, young kids.
This is exactly what I've been warning about as we go younger and younger.
The statistics on the benefits are not remotely as good (note the 20-29), as we haven't nailed down the known risk factors in various vaccines.
Vaccines are about risk-reward. The reward is usually great, and the risk not only extremely low, but well known. Here, we don't know, and even these statistics are subject to change.
But for now, it's enough to yank. The same thing happened with one HPV vaccine early on, with healthy, young kids.
Last edited:
“Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA...”
That’s on page 19 and this filing is from 2018. I have read that Miriam-Webster updated their definition of vaccine sometime in February, so maybe that works.
End of world = 3rd Pfizer shot for free
Get the vaccine unless you love pandemics
Get the vaccine unless you love pandemics
I’m going to get that in addition to Pfizer just to cut down on my risk of a DVT. Love those stats. 1 in a million baby!!😊
First off, stop saying 'the' vaccine.
Secondly, the Danish now say 'no' to one of them ... especially for those age 20-29, especially women.
Several others are now considering the same, and I believe Australia just did as well.
Long-term, this probably impacts the J&J negatively too as it is an Adenovirus type with similar side effects.
And before you say 'conspiracy theory' one more time ... that's the UK NHS' own numbers.
You put yourself at more risk eating twinkies and Jelly donuts, right?First off, stop saying 'the' vaccine.
Secondly, the Danish now say 'no' to one of them ... especially for those age 20-29, especially women.
Several others are now considering the same, and I believe Australia just did as well.
And before you say 'conspiracy theory' one more time ... that's the UK NHS' own numbers.
The next time a real virus comes along you’ll probably lead the charge of the American population into extinction as a business consultant specializing in vaccine “research.”
Think about this for just a second. Covid has been presented as a really, really dangerous thing. Like, if you catch it you've got a pretty high likelihood of dying, at the very least 1 in 1,000.
So we have a vaccine that they are saying has a 1 in 1 million chance of causing death, but the FDA and CDC decided it was too risky so they pulled it.
Do these two things add up to you? They are saying that the thing that is less likely to kill you by a factor of 1,000 isn't worth the risk.
The US CDC did not, and the US FDA just 'paused' the J&J Adenovirus type.
Over in the UK, they still have yanked the AstraZeneca Adenovirus type, but are warning against young people from getting it. The risk-reward isn't worth it for them.
I.e., I agree with you that the US FDA should reconsider NOT 'pausing' it for the elderly. But, and this is what people miss ... for a person 20-29, the chance of having an ICU-like SARS-CoV-2 trip is almost half as much from the vaccine itself, than SARS-CoV-2. Limit it to women, and we're talking more 1:1, same risk.
People need to stop with this 3rd grader 'safe' argument and recognize everything is about risk-reward. It's worth it for the elderly. But as we go younger, let alone kids ... things change drasticaly.
And if we ever get conclusive, extensive trials with proof that it does little to stop how fast kids spread it, just like asymptomatic still do in adults, then ... it's going to get real interesting as the vaccine really doesn't offer much for them.
I.e., in adults, the best that has ever been found -- and only for several weeks, not multiple months -- is that both an asymptomatic person and a vaccinated person spread it about 1/3rd as much as a symptomatic person. But they still spread it, and that's adults. Kids are likely going to be completely different.
People do, yes.
Now if you mean me, I've had maybe 3 pastries in over a decade. And I've been pretty much a raw vegan type diet for the past 4 years, ever since I discovered I had Conn Syndrome. I only eat freshly prepared meat in my diet, rarely processed. You'll see me eat maybe 1-2 times/season up in the Cabana, and I don't drink (never have).
I avoided sugars a good decade before that. That's why my A1C is between 4.9-5.0. That's why my issues are between my endocrinologist and myself. It's not the typical US weight issue, it's chemical.
I'm sorry you have butthurt because I keep providing fact after fact, while you have provided assumptions and jack.
I’m sorry that you love pandemics. Putting a bunch of Google articles together, interpreting them haphazardly without background knowledge, and adding your own twist is not providing facts. It’s providing danger and deceit
You literally cannot admit that there is proven, increased risk versus reward, the younger we go.
And you guys are utterly in denial about the fact that yes, you can spread SARS-CoV-2, just like any coronavirus, if you are not infected, and yes, even if you have had any vaccine.
They've shown that in study after study. At best, it's a 2/3rds reduction in adults when they are asymptomatic or vaccinated versus symptomatic. Kids will not be remotely that good.
Vaccines are always about risk-reward, especially when not approved, and only authorized under specific, Emergency Use.
How many vaccines have been authorized under emergency use in the history of vaccines? All the world leaders have taken it including a past and present United States president, but @UCFBS has vaccines porn fear. You just don’t understand how the vaccines work. What long term complications are you suspecting? Give us facts. zombieism? Rare carcinomas?
The influenza vaccines are the worst examples.
Even the US CDC had to admit that the fall 2016-2019 vaccines against the influenza B/C strains had a resulting efficacy if only 16-25%, not the commonly stated 85%+.
I.e., people who got the vaccines those 3 seasons ended up still catching the flu 75-84% of the time, and many (most if you believe some statistics) did not have a 'mild' flu either.
At least the mRNA and Adenovirus type vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are far, far better in that regard, even if just for a single season.
In fact, the mRNA attempts for influenza-B/C were worse than the existing, and had far more side effects. Most people don't know that, because they don't read up.
Hence why the vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 work fairly well -- actually, outstandingly well -- for any vaccine, let alone relatively new ones. That's why all elderly and high risk should really get one.
Flu and Shingles (especially the older VZL) vaccines? Not so much, not even for the elderly.
But if you're young? Another story regarding risk-reward with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines ... especially since, unlike the flu, we really don't know a lot about them ... yet. Risk factors will take years to discover and correlate.
Last edited:
Of course I’ll admit that’s possible. The risk to the younger population from COVID is infinitesimally small
The risk of getting it or an “infection” as you 3rd grade amateur physicians call it is not low. You said it’s very virulent, so what the hell are you talking about?
Additionally, your argument is not about young people, it’s about the vaccines not being safe, so stop being all over the place once again
Huh? That's 180 degrees from what I said from the get-go!
First off, from the get-go, I said that it was worth the risk for the elderly and high risk.
Secondly, also from the get-go, I questioned kids getting a vaccine that is not even approved, and having to deal with possibly, long term effects for 50+ years!
This should be the point where you start to realize you're arguing with me for arguments sake, because you utterly missed my original points ... from the get-go.
Especially when the UK NHS' itself (who has not yet yanked the vaccine, only the Danish, plus the Aussies are considering it) says that people (women and men) have a risk-reward with the AstraZeneca Adenovirus type vaccine that may not be worth it, since it can cause serious side-effects or even death, as much as 50% of the chance of going to the ICU, or even death, from the disease itself!
That right there was what I was warning about, has now happened, and you are too prideful to admit! We just don't know! That's what I said from the get-go, about the elder v. young! Geez that was my point all along! From the very first post!
Stop asserting what you want to believe I said. 3rd f'ing grader!!!
It’s nice to see that your totally triggered, but thousands of middle age people have died from COVID without risk factors and unless they get vaccinated as well ASAP, this pandemic isn’t ending anytime soon
Weren’t you the one pushing for the adenovirus vaccines just 7-10 days ago, because you trusted them more than mRNA vaccines based on your extensive research in your garage?
Now what do you have to say about Adenovirus vaccines Dr. UCFBS?
Yes. I never shied from that. For the risk factors in my case, my PCP and I agreed upon it. My PCP is a doctor, even if I'm not.
For my wife, it was just the first one made available to her. In fact, she still wouldn't have been able to get another one other than the J&J.
Again, we're in a pickle. No one knows any of the long-term effects.
And it looks like under 30 now have a >1 in 100,000 chance of serious side effects with an Adenovirus type, while catching the virus and having to go the ICU is a median of only 2.2 in 100,.000 chance. But that's just short-term.
Well, ask my PCP. She's the one that advised me on Adenovirus type. But they all have risk, short and long-term, the former known, the latter ... we honestly don't know who and how many.
Again, we really don't know anything about the long-term effects of either Adenovirus or mRNA types.
And that's what you don't want to admit. You keep playing games on this, refusing to admit ... people like me are logical, objective and pointing out we honestly don't know jack.
Huh? You think I don't think people 50+ or even 30+ with various risks, should be vaccinated? Where do you get that from?
Similar threads
