Did the CDC jump the gun?

I watched the video, and the findings do appear concerning. (I am also concerned with other nanoparticles that are gaining popularity, but without regulation or disclosure on packaging, such as those in our sunscreens that we can absorb through our skin). 

Do other experts in the field concur with the concerns in the video, or are there reasons they do not? 

I was also curious about Dr. Robert Malone. His LLC website (https://www.rwmalonemd.com/) is a bit strange. It looks like he's placing his bets both ways:

• trying to find an alternate treatment of COVID-19, using existing drugs, in case one of them turns out to be a silver bullet;
• and on trying to get the credit that he feels he was cheated out of (by the business Vical Pharma), if the mRNA vaccines turn out to be the true hero of the day.

I'm open to the fact that there are unknown risks with this new form of immunization--and would like more examination and study. 

As I keep stating -- we are all taking bets, and unless one has a crystal ball, the right answer is currently unknown.

Watch, with caution, what is happening in the UK.  They were ahead of us in vaccination rate and doing well for a while but cases have been rising for weeks because of the Delta variant.  

terp said:

And I'm supposed to believe you're going to be this guy?

 Wearing masks was not, and is not, the same as going along with "Heil Hitler".

It's ridiculous that I just had to type that last sentence.

terp said:

The guy on the left is one of the inventors of mRNA vaccines.

Thirty-three years of experimental technology and counting. 

terp said:

And I'm supposed to believe you're going to be this guy?

 you might think I'd be angry at your insults. But over the last several months your comments have become more and more unhinged. The pandemic was hard on all of us but maybe worse for you. So you're not provoking anger in me as much as pity. If your responses are truthful and not trolling it seems like maybe it sucks to be you these days. I hope it gets better for you. 

nohero said:

terp said:

And I'm supposed to believe you're going to be this guy?

 Wearing masks was not, and is not, the same as going along with "Heil Hitler".

It's ridiculous that I just had to type that last sentence.

 I'm not sure it's even worth the effort to type a response to someone who is comparing individual persons' participation in actions designed to mitigate a pandemic with those of people who turned a blind eye to genocide. 

ml1 said:

 I'm not sure it's even worth the effort to type a response to someone who is comparing individual persons' participation in actions designed to mitigate a pandemic with those of people who turned a blind eye to genocide. 

 They're practically the same thing, just that the former actively prevents mass death, the latter actively causes it.

The man in the photo appears to be Gustav Wegert, a Christian who always refused the Nazi salute on religious grounds. A valued worker at the shipyard where the photo was taken in 1936, he received warnings for this practice but (to his wife’s amazement) was never imprisoned, according to his son, and died at age 68 or 69 in 1959.

terp said:

The mRNA vaccines send instructions to your cells to produce the spike protien. I will use the term the inventor uses "genetic vaccines". It is not true that the mRNA disintegrates quickly.

You're incorrect here -- mRNA is quite fragile. This is why the mRNA vaccines use the lipid nanoparticles, as a protective envelope around the mRNA (thanks DS for watching the video -- I still keep my "no video" rule so didn't watch it). Once in a cell, the mRNA does give instructions for producing the spike protein, as you note, but this does not involve changing the cell's own genetic code, and the mRNA is pretty quickly broken down. Cells create and break down mRNA constantly, so the vaccine here is just hitching on to pre-existing mechanisms.

terp said:

This is not true. There are issues with myocarditis after getting these vaccines especially in youger men. These young men, if healthy, have very little risk from contracting Covid.

Yes, there have been reports of myocarditis, which is being investigated. The incidence is higher than ideal, but it's still not actually high, and still less than the number of people of the same demographic who experience severe side effects from covid. I don't know on what basis you claim that a a young man has less risk from covid than from a vaccine.

I'm not in any sense a medical expert, but logically it seems very unlikely that someone who did experience myocarditis would have been safer having contracted covid. Given that all the vaccine does is tell your cells to make the spike protein, and so trigger an immune response, I'd guess it most likely that incidents of myocarditis are tied to the way the immune system is responding. In that case, actually catching covid, which also triggers an immune response, seems like it would be at least as likely to trigger a similar outcome, among other bad outcomes. Indeed, a quick google search reveals reports of covid-related myocarditis, eg: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7199677/. 

And again, if the mRNA technology really weirds you out, the J&J one uses more traditional vaccine technologies.

sprout said:

Do other experts in the field concur with the concerns in the video, or are there reasons they do not?

A couple of things that I don’t recall coming up in the video: The study it discusses was conducted on mice, not humans, and with doses of lipid nanoparticles, not with Covid-19 vaccine doses. Also, the doses were relatively high.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/covid-19-vaccines-are-going-to-sterilize-our-womenfolk-take-2/

A translated version of the study:

https://www.naturalnews.com/files/Pfizer-bio-distribution-confidential-document-translated-to-english.pdf

Some context for the video’s chart illustrating spikes in lipid nanonparticle concentration after 48 hours in the study: The amount in the ovaries, the largest spike shown, was 0.1% (one thousandth) of the lipid dose. For comparison, 24.6% percent remained at the injection site and 16.4% was in the liver.

DaveSchmidt said:

terp said:

The guy on the left is one of the inventors of mRNA vaccines.

Thirty-three years of experimental technology and counting. 

 In that thirty years, how many of these products were FDA approved?

ml1 said:

terp said:

And I'm supposed to believe you're going to be this guy?

 you might think I'd be angry at your insults. But over the last several months your comments have become more and more unhinged. The pandemic was hard on all of us but maybe worse for you. So you're not provoking anger in me as much as pity. If your responses are truthful and not trolling it seems like maybe it sucks to be you these days. I hope it gets better for you. 

 I am fine.  What I don't like is people calling out others  look at what's going on in a much less than clear situation, and come to a different conclusion about health decisions.  When I see people celebrating the prospects that others will have rights/priveledges revoked, or wished harm for not following changing protocols I am going to react.

I am surprised that people are comfortable with some of this.  It's one thing to be wrong.  It is quite another to be comfortable or even wish harm on our fellow man.  

I see that you are still hanging on to your original reading regarding compliance.  If it helps you sleep at night to paint me as some kind of crank who should be pitied, then go for it.  

DaveSchmidt said:

The man in the photo appears to be Gustav Wegert, a Christian who always refused the Nazi salute on religious grounds. A valued worker at the shipyard where the photo was taken in 1936, he received warnings for this practice but (to his wife’s amazement) was never imprisoned, according to his son, and died at age 68 or 69 in 1959.

 That is correct.  I don't know that it is conclusively him, but it probably is. 

sprout said:

I watched the video, and the findings do appear concerning. (I am also concerned with other nanoparticles that are gaining popularity, but without regulation or disclosure on packaging, such as those in our sunscreens that we can absorb through our skin). 

Do other experts in the field concur with the concerns in the video, or are there reasons they do not? 

I was also curious about Dr. Robert Malone. His LLC website (https://www.rwmalonemd.com/) is a bit strange. It looks like he's placing his bets both ways:

• trying to find an alternate treatment of COVID-19, using existing drugs, in case one of them turns out to be a silver bullet;
• and on trying to get the credit that he feels he was cheated out of (by the business Vical Pharma), if the mRNA vaccines turn out to be the true hero of the day.

I'm open to the fact that there are unknown risks with this new form of immunization--and would like more examination and study. 

As I keep stating -- we are all taking bets, and unless one has a crystal ball, the right answer is currently unknown.

 Well, there are a number of doctors that seem to think that ivermectin is effective in treating Covid and that effectiveness may be increased when used in combination with other drugs.  

The clip was taken from a 3 hour discussion.  Part of that discussion is that it is very difficult to get approval for existing drugs for new applications like covid.  The general feeling was that this is due to financial interests.  They pointed out that these drugs have already been proven safe.  They also point out quite a few real examples where the drug(s) have been effective in the real world(Mexico, India, etc) where death, hospitalization, etc reduced after the drug was introduced.   They do admit that there is no large double blind study, but argue that there is a lot of evidence that it works.

And I agree with you, that there we are all making bets.  We all use our judgement and make the best decisions for us and those we love.  That's why I don't understand nor appreciate the hostility directed at those who have concerns.

bub said:

Watch, with caution, what is happening in the UK.  They were ahead of us in vaccination rate and doing well for a while but cases have been rising for weeks because of the Delta variant.  

 BTW;  I don't believe England is vaccinating children.

terp said:

ml1 said:

terp said:

And I'm supposed to believe you're going to be this guy?

 you might think I'd be angry at your insults. But over the last several months your comments have become more and more unhinged. The pandemic was hard on all of us but maybe worse for you. So you're not provoking anger in me as much as pity. If your responses are truthful and not trolling it seems like maybe it sucks to be you these days. I hope it gets better for you. 

 I am fine.  What I don't like is people calling out others  look at what's going on in a much less than clear situation, and come to a different conclusion about health decisions.  When I see people celebrating the prospects that others will have rights/priveledges revoked, or wished harm for not following changing protocols I am going to react.

I am surprised that people are comfortable with some of this.  It's one thing to be wrong.  It is quite another to be comfortable or even wish harm on our fellow man.  

I see that you are still hanging on to your original reading regarding compliance.  If it helps you sleep at night to paint me as some kind of crank who should be pitied, then go for it.  

 you are a crank, but it doesn't give me any pleasure to identify you as such.

if you think about it, if 100% of us made the personal choice not to be vaccinated, we'd still be in the midst of a terrible pandemic.  and if we all went about our business and didn't follow the public health guidelines out of "personal freedom" the transmission rate would be going up, and hundreds of thousands more people would die.  And hundreds of thousands would be grappling with long-term health problems.  Your personal choice not to be vaccinated because your risk of infection is now low is a result of the 75% of NJ adults who HAVE been vaccinated.  We've made it possible for the non-vaxxers to stay healthy on our backs and make their "personal choice" not to be vaccinated.

and then people like you have the gall to say getting vaccinated or wearing a mask is like being an obedient Nazi during the Holocaust.  Yup, you're a crank.

and I went back through this thread and another one on getting back to normal after COVID, and not surprisingly I didn't find instances of people wishing harm on the unvaccinated, or calling for compulsory vaccinations.  Personally I said I DON'T think we should be wishing unvaccinated people infect each other.  And I've expressed that I think private businesses like sports franchises should be able to limit contact with unvaccinated people.

I don't see why it should be an issue for private businesses to make decisions for the safety of their employees and customers.  I'm actually ok with people making the choice not be vaccinated, as irrational a choice as I think it is.  But with everything, there should be accountability.  You don't want a vaccine, fine.  But that might mean for the near term there are going to be places you can't go if it puts you in close proximity to other people for long periods of time.  It is what it is. People have to be accountable for the choices they make that might affect other people.

terp said:

That is correct.

Confirmation of accuracy from someone who mistook lipid nanoparticles for mRNA after posting a video that took pains from the start to distinguish between them gives me no confidence.

ml1 said:

and I went back through this thread and another one on getting back to normal after COVID, and not surprisingly I didn't find instances of people wishing harm on the unvaccinated, or calling for compulsory vaccinations.  Personally I said I DON'T think we should be wishing unvaccinated people infect each other.  And I've expressed that I think private businesses like sports franchises should be able to limit contact with unvaccinated people.

I don't see why it should be an issue for private businesses to make decisions for the safety of their employees and customers.  I'm actually ok with people making the choice not be vaccinated, as irrational a choice as I think it is.  But with everything, there should be accountability.  You don't want a vaccine, fine.  But that might mean for the near term there are going to be places you can't go if it puts you in close proximity to other people for long periods of time.  It is what it is. People have to be accountable for the choices they make that might affect other people.

 My body, my choice should work both ways, no? If people have a right not to take medication to protect from a contagious respiratory virus, then don't other people likewise have the right not to be exposed to that same virus?

terp said:

sprout said:

I watched the video, and the findings do appear concerning. (I am also concerned with other nanoparticles that are gaining popularity, but without regulation or disclosure on packaging, such as those in our sunscreens that we can absorb through our skin). 

Do other experts in the field concur with the concerns in the video, or are there reasons they do not? 

I was also curious about Dr. Robert Malone. His LLC website (https://www.rwmalonemd.com/) is a bit strange. It looks like he's placing his bets both ways:

• trying to find an alternate treatment of COVID-19, using existing drugs, in case one of them turns out to be a silver bullet;
• and on trying to get the credit that he feels he was cheated out of (by the business Vical Pharma), if the mRNA vaccines turn out to be the true hero of the day.

I'm open to the fact that there are unknown risks with this new form of immunization--and would like more examination and study. 

As I keep stating -- we are all taking bets, and unless one has a crystal ball, the right answer is currently unknown.

 Well, there are a number of doctors that seem to think that ivermectin is effective in treating Covid and that effectiveness may be increased when used in combination with other drugs.  

The clip was taken from a 3 hour discussion.  Part of that discussion is that it is very difficult to get approval for existing drugs for new applications like covid.  The general feeling was that this is due to financial interests.  They pointed out that these drugs have already been proven safe.  They also point out quite a few real examples where the drug(s) have been effective in the real world(Mexico, India, etc) where death, hospitalization, etc reduced after the drug was introduced.   They do admit that there is no large double blind study, but argue that there is a lot of evidence that it works.

And I agree with you, that there we are all making bets.  We all use our judgement and make the best decisions for us and those we love.  That's why I don't understand nor appreciate the hostility directed at those who have concerns.

And I don't understand why if Dr. Robert Malone wants to have more credibility, he's not getting a panel of medical experts to corroborate his perspective, or at least indicate that they will be pursuing those questions. Instead, he's doing a podcast with a venture capitalist who he gushed praise on for putting monetary bets on some of these alternate treatments. It looks like there are financial interests all around.

PVW said:

 My body, my choice should work both ways, no? If people have a right not to take medication to protect from a contagious respiratory virus, then don't other people likewise have the right not to be exposed to that same virus?

 absolutely. That's the frustrating thing about the "mah freedom" people. They want to do only what they want to do. They don't want to be vaccinated, they didn't want to wear masks. And they still want to go wherever they want and do whatever they want. Even if it puts other people at risk. That's not libertarian. That's being an ****. 

ml1 said:

 absolutely. That's the frustrating thing about the "mah freedom" people. They want to do only what they want to do. They don't want to be vaccinated, they didn't want to wear masks. And they still want to go wherever they want and do whatever they want. Even if it puts other people at risk. That's not libertarian. That's being an ****. 

 Hence my edit on the title of the Libertarianism thread.

All this brouhaha notwithstanding here's a graphic that might put a different perspective on this wanting to relax restrictions. Some estimates of the R0 for the delta variant are over 7. That is close to the smallpox level of contagiousness.

The severity of illness is also a problem for those contracting it who are not vaccinated.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/delta-covid-19-variant-likely-to-become-dominant-in-u-s-cdc-director-says-11624047575

https://abc7news.com/delta-variant-covid-variants-in-us/10786774/

terp said:

Well, there are a number of doctors that seem to think that ivermectin is effective in treating Covid and that effectiveness may be increased when used in combination with other drugs.

More relevant to this discussion would be the number of doctors who recommend forgoing a vaccine in favor of risking Covid and needing the “extraordinary” measure, as the Emory doctors you linked to described it, of treatment with ivermectin should you come down with it.

https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/ivermectin-why-potential-covid-treatment-isnt-recommended-use

I've said it before. Ivermectin is not a viable treatment for COVID-19. The data is not there.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389

DaveSchmidt said:

terp said:

That is correct.

Confirmation of accuracy from someone who mistook lipid nanoparticles for mRNA after posting a video that took pains from the start to distinguish between them gives me no confidence.

 The nanoparticles are the package that the mRNA resides in.

ml1 said:

terp said:

ml1 said:

terp said:

And I'm supposed to believe you're going to be this guy?

 you might think I'd be angry at your insults. But over the last several months your comments have become more and more unhinged. The pandemic was hard on all of us but maybe worse for you. So you're not provoking anger in me as much as pity. If your responses are truthful and not trolling it seems like maybe it sucks to be you these days. I hope it gets better for you. 

 I am fine.  What I don't like is people calling out others  look at what's going on in a much less than clear situation, and come to a different conclusion about health decisions.  When I see people celebrating the prospects that others will have rights/priveledges revoked, or wished harm for not following changing protocols I am going to react.

I am surprised that people are comfortable with some of this.  It's one thing to be wrong.  It is quite another to be comfortable or even wish harm on our fellow man.  

I see that you are still hanging on to your original reading regarding compliance.  If it helps you sleep at night to paint me as some kind of crank who should be pitied, then go for it.  

 you are a crank, but it doesn't give me any pleasure to identify you as such.

if you think about it, if 100% of us made the personal choice not to be vaccinated, we'd still be in the midst of a terrible pandemic.  and if we all went about our business and didn't follow the public health guidelines out of "personal freedom" the transmission rate would be going up, and hundreds of thousands more people would die.  And hundreds of thousands would be grappling with long-term health problems.  Your personal choice not to be vaccinated because your risk of infection is now low is a result of the 75% of NJ adults who HAVE been vaccinated.  We've made it possible for the non-vaxxers to stay healthy on our backs and make their "personal choice" not to be vaccinated.

and then people like you have the gall to say getting vaccinated or wearing a mask is like being an obedient Nazi during the Holocaust.  Yup, you're a crank.

Where is the study that says hundreds of thousands of more people would die and hundreds of thousands of more people would be grappling with long term health problems without the vaccine?  That is quite an assertion.  I'm sure you wouldn't mind proving it.

And your reading comprehension could use some work.  Again, get the Trump vaccines, wear your masks.  I don't care, and I certainly don't think that makes it likely that you'd be a nzi sympathizer. 

What makes me think one would support a tyrannical regime is insisting that everyone abide by authority over their own best judgement and to wish them Ill or to celebrate their loss of rights and priveledges.  This is something you do repeatedly and have done on this thread.  You play dumb, but the posts are there.

Perhaps I am a crank, but I don't wish anyone Ill will, nor do I want to see anyone's rights or priveledges revoked.  I certainly would not make fun of that prospect. 

this sounds like a libertarian thread - might have to move it to politics.

DaveSchmidt said:

terp said:

Well, there are a number of doctors that seem to think that ivermectin is effective in treating Covid and that effectiveness may be increased when used in combination with other drugs.

More relevant to this discussion would be the number of doctors who recommend forgoing a vaccine in favor of risking Covid and needing the “extraordinary” measure, as the Emory doctors you linked to described it, of treatment with ivermectin should you come down with it.

 What is that number?  Do these doctors make the same recommendations regardless of factors like age, health, and the existence of comorbidities?