I'm not antivax by any means. I got a flu shot last year just because I was in for a checkup and they offered it. It was the first time I'd had a flu shot, and I did have a pretty severe reaction that lasted two days (severe conjunctivitis, absolute blood red eyes). But I'm getting concerned about the push for this COVID vaccine. There's so much money involved, so much to be made, that although everyone says they're not cutting corners, I don't believe it.

To make matters more concerning, one of the candidate vaccines getting a lot of push uses mRNA technology, which is essentially, according to my understanding, a DNA-based vaccine. And, this technology has never been used before for a vaccine. It has been used for cancer. But we're talking about injecting this into literally billions of people. That's great if it works, but if there are delayed negative effects, it's not so good.

Phase three trials have begun for a mRNA vaccine being developed by Moderna. They began just last week, the end of July 2020. I have seen a lot of predictions that there will likely be a vaccine by late 2020 or early 2021. But according to what I've read, this stage of trials takes one year to complete. So the forces that be are pushing for a vaccine to be released before trials are truly finished. From a recent news story ----

From https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/27/dr-anthony-fauci-isnt-particularly-concerned-about-safe... July 27, 2020 (emphasis added):

"Moderna, which is working in collaboration with the NIH, announced earlier in the day that it began its late-stage trial for its vaccine. The trial will enroll at least 30,000 participants across at least 87 locations, according to ClinicalTrials.gov. Participants in the experimental arm will receive a 100 microgram dose of the potential vaccine on the first day and another 29 days later. Some patients will receive a placebo.

If approved by the Food and Drug Administration, Moderna’s experimental vaccine would be the first of its kind. Researchers will follow participants after the phase-three trial for one year to monitor the vaccine’s potential safety risks and two years to monitor its efficacy, Fauci said."

According to this schedule for the trial, this vaccine, to be truly deemed safe, won't be ready until July 2021 at the earliest. So we're looking at a minimum of one year without a safe vaccine. And yet, I often read pronouncements from politicians and health experts that a vaccine could be ready by the end of 2020 or early 2021. I think I'll hold off until those stage three trials are really finished, and then still do some research before allowing myself to be injected with a potion that messes with my DNA.

It sounds like great technology, and if it's truly safe and effective, I'll be at the front of the line.

EDIT: Here's another article: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/07/moderna-begins-first-late-stage-us-trial-of-cov...

"Moderna has given the first doses of its experimental COVID-19 vaccine to participants in what will be a 30,000-person trial, as the United States moved into a new phase of the race to develop a vaccine by the start of next year." (emphasis added)

Again, if Phase three takes one year, starting in July of 2020, how could this be available by early of 2021?

Also, though I don't have a source at the moment, I have read and heard in the media that one way they are fast tracking these vaccines is by paying these companies to produce the vaccine for mass use before trials are complete. This is because it is that production phase that can take months once a vaccine has completed all trials. So the US govt. is giving hundreds of millions of dollars to some of these companies to actually start producing these vaccines without financial risk to the companies. If the vaccines fail to pass trials, they'll just be destroyed. It's a logical, sensible approach, but it also does add incentive to see the vaccines deemed safe.

Here is the page for the Moderna study on clinicaltrials.gov:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427?cond=COVID-19&phase=2&fund=0&am...

It states the estimated study completion date as October 27, 2022. In fact, they're still recruiting for the study, so it appears that not even one person has gotten the jab for this phase three trial.

This just gets more suspect the more I look into it. Here's a video in which the doctor, in white coat and all, claims that results will be available "not until" November or December. But wait, according to clinicaltrials.gov, the trial won't be over until October 2022, two years later than what these TV personalities are saying.

So what gives?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UekD2Fvt2Ro

Thanks for that research Dan - you've already uncovered a glaring contradiction in the information being disseminated as well as raising the RNA concerns.

If the narrative is, 'Take this - trust us it's fine!' then it's reasonable we examine if we really can trust those promoting the vaccines or not. As you said, there's a lot of money involved (and politics), and money makes people do funny things.

My attitude will be that i'd like to wait a few years to see how all the vaccines go - then i'll make a decision.

There will be a lot of shaming of anti-vaxxers going on but there have been several cases of vaccines either proving useless or even harmful. The Gulf War Syndrome is a good example:

Ms Humphreys, 39, from Dolgellau, north Wales, who suffers typical symptoms of the syndrome - severe headaches, nausea, muscular pain, joint swelling, short term memory loss and depression - said: "I believe the MoD has used us like guinea pigs to see how effective squalene is.

"There are no words to describe what they have done. It's just medically, morally and ethically wrong."

Yep, me too. I'm going to wait until the dust settles before deciding on a vaccine. My students may not be so lucky. They're required to get a flu vaccine every year before they can attend classes. It will be interesting to see what happens with this vaccine.

Russia has approved the world's first vaccine after less than two months of testing.

Funny how it all devolved into a nationalistic pissing competition - at first it was a race to find a vaccine to save the world! It now seems there's no vaccine unless it's produced and endorsed by your political bloc.

At least with the Russian vaccine we hear the criticisms from 'experts' that would normally be message-managed out of public earshot and branded as anti-vaxxer.

"Politics should have no role in the vaccine approval process in any country, as this would be playing with fire as experience with some historic vaccine programs has shown."

"(T)his vaccine could cause serious harm, not just to those who receive the vaccine, but to COVID-19 vaccine programs more generally."

"Both the Oxford vaccine and Sputnik V use adapted strains of the adenovirus, some of which can cause illnesses including bronchitis and pneumonia, to trigger an immune response."

"Vaccine development always has an element of risk-benefit analysis, Professor Purcell says."

"(Y)ou'd be stupid to run a vaccine trial for less than a year — 90 per cent of vaccines fall over between trials."

"One vaccine under development by the pharmaceutical firm CanSino and the People's Liberation Army has already been cleared for use by the nation's military personnel."

Don't think i'll be queuing up to get a jab from the PLA!

Past problems with vaccines in China include:

2010: four children were killed and 74 others harmed in Shanxi province after receiving vaccines that had been improperly stored.

2016: revealed that tens of millions of dollars worth of expired vaccines were sold around the country for years.

Australian PM Scott Morrison, talking about a prospective vaccine, said he would "expect it to be as mandatory as you can possibly make it. There are always exemptions for any vaccine on medical grounds, but that should be the only basis."

He later walked back those comments somewhat but said measures would be introduced to "encourage" everyone to get it. Currently, there are financial penalties for parents who decline to have their children vaccinated.

I really don't see the fuss. Most people will take it so what do they care - it's supposed to provide immunity right? So anyone not taking it is not hurting anyone except possibly themselves.

Here's an example of a vaccine that backfired:

"In 2009, Pandemrix, a rapidly-developed vaccine for H1N1 swine flu, lead to people developing the chronic sleep disorder narcolepsy."

The announcement of a Russia vaccine attracted a lot of criticism but "so far, so good" is the verdict according to a Lancet paper after a trial on 38 participants. It did cause side effects including headaches and joint pain but nothing too serious supposedly.

I wonder if it did pass a bigger 'stage-3' trial, would America, Europe and China accept it - or will they still cling to their own versions? Or is that a stupid question?

There are 176 vaccine candidates being developed around the world. 34 are being tested on people. Eight are at stage three.

AstraZeneca, which is developing a high-profile vaccine with the University of Oxford, has paused trials due to a "potentially unexplained illness". A review will be conducted.

No details of the illness were supplied.

Australia has already agreed to purchase 33.8 million doses.

Update:
NY Times is reporting that a vaccine trial participant "had received a diagnosis of transverse myelitis, an inflammatory syndrome that affects the spinal cord and is often sparked by viral infections."

According to Mayo Clinic website:

"Transverse myelitis interrupts the messages that the spinal cord nerves send throughout the body. This can cause pain, muscle weakness, paralysis, sensory problems, or bladder and bowel dysfunction... Most people recover at least partially. Those with severe attacks sometimes are left with major disabilities."

Although "immune system disorders that attack the body's tissues" are listed as a major cause, it's not known whether the vaccine was the trigger in this instance - hence the investigation.

The politicization of this whole mess is going to make it so much worse than it needs to be. I'm going to wait a solid year at least before taking any vaccine. After all, that's when the stage three trials will end -- August 2021. And that's an expedited schedule for vaccines.

What a mess.

From the article:

Late-stage vaccine testing remains crucial, as large trials can turn up rare but serious side effects that would surface only if many thousands of people received a vaccine.

“This is the whole point of doing these Phase 2, Phase 3 trials,” said Dr. Phyllis Tien, an infectious disease physician at the University of California, San Francisco. “We need to assess safety, and we won’t know the efficacy part until much later. I think halting the trial until the safety board can figure out whether or not this was directly related to the vaccine is a good idea.” Emphasis added

Which is why the phase three part of the trial, which typically takes at least a year, is so important.

Here we go. As governments fork out untold billions to pay for 'free' vaccines (ultimately it's not free - the taxpayer pays for it), we're now being told to "manage expectations".

"The first COVID-19 vaccine is unlikely to prevent people getting the disease and may only alleviate sufferers’ symptoms, scientists have told UK ministers."

Even at that dramatically lowered bar, which i never heard anyone talk about before, Professor Whitty believes a vaccine that is "40 to 60 per cent effective, is realistic."

One more reason to hold off on getting jabbed.

"The most recent case was in 2018, when Changsheng Biotechnology Co. came under investigation for falsifying records and making ineffective rabies vaccines for children.

In 2017, Wuhan Institute of Biological Products Co., a CNBG subsidiary behind one of the vaccines in phase 3 trials, was found to have made defective diphtheria vaccines that were ineffective."

The financial incentive for just getting something out there, anything, is massive. If it doesn't work then later we can say:

'In the battle against an evolving, unprecedented virus, vaccine development is not an exact science, it's an ongoing process.'

The message will be - that one didn't work - but how about trying this new one!?

That's exactly right. The drug companies have a pre-paid get out of jail card. After all, if their vaccine is given the green light, then the governments are complicit if anything goes wrong, and those governments are going to turn on the spin full bore to avoid any blame on anybody if people suffer negative effects or if the vaccine is useless, hence leading to a false sense of security which would then lead to people not taking precautions and, as a result, the virus spreading like wildfire.

A bad vaccine could not only hurt people, it could make the pandemic much, much worse. This is an absolute shit show.

"Researchers from the Beijing University of Chemical Technology found that whey proteins from human breast milk can inhibit the coronavirus by “blocking viral attachment, entry and even post-entry viral replication”. Human whey had an inhibition efficiency of about 98 per cent.

In the study Tong Yigang, a professor of microbiology and epidemiology, and his colleagues exposed healthy cells in human breast milk to the virus. They observed almost no viral binding or entry to these cells, and the halting of viral replication in cells that were already infected."

According to Dan's 'slug-slime' theory - that's got zero hope of getting up as cure/vaccine. How the fuck is anyone supposed to make billions out of something that can't be patented?

This is a detailed article - destined to be ignored by 'the experts' - that questions the basecamp thinking of the drive to find a vaccine.

The first point is: “There is not one vaccine that can provide 100% efficacy, not one, nada.”

The next point is: Old people have degraded immune systems.

Given vaccine shots are all about fiddling with the immune system to get a result - this gravely complicates the process.

It may well be that the magical 'vaccine' works for a limited period with those that don't need it, the young, with their robust immune systems. But may be fatal to old people.

Whatever 'the vaccine' is - it won't be a silver bullet: we all take it once - Covid goes away.

It's a series of shots - that's just initially.

It will then be a perpetual yearly mega-industry of drugs, fear and control - register your details - line up for your shots.

If it doesn't even protect the vulnerable, is the underlying logic of it a giant con?

Personally, I'd like to know how the virus originated before i take any vaccine.

If it did leak from a Wuhan lab, which still seems like the Occam's Razor answer, where they were manipulating harmless bat viruses to make them super contagious - then do i want a lab manipulated vaccine (containing elements of the disease) to counter that lab engineered virus?

Maybe, but i'd like to take a few years to think about it.

If it did leak from a Wuhan lab, which still seems like the Occam's Razor answer, where they were manipulating harmless bat viruses to make them super contagious - then do i want a lab manipulated vaccine (containing elements of the disease) to counter that lab engineered virus?

This is the $10,000 question.

The next point is: Old people have degraded immune systems.

And I would rate this as the $8,000 question, still very respectable.

I think a good vaccine is a godsend, but I don't think we should trust them blindly, like we do, say, postage stamps.

Before coming to Taiwan in late 1989 I started getting the first of three vaccine shots for hepatitis, what was it, B? It was the one that was endemic in Taiwan at the time. In fact, Taiwan had the highest rates of Hep B (?) in the world at the time, and it was basically fatal, usually leading to liver cancer. So, yeah, I got the vaccine, or at least the first shot, before leaving the US.

I went to a clinic in Kaohsiung after arriving to get the follow-ups, and the doctor confirmed that it was indeed endemic. What's more, she had herself tested before getting the vaccine, and found that she had acquired a natural immunity. So, due, apparently, to low dose exposure, she had acquired natural immunity to this deadly virus that was a top killer at the time, via liver cancer, in Taiwan.

So it is a very complex issue. Can taking a vaccine actually mess with an immune system that would otherwise fend off the disease? To what extent do we overgeneralize on the need for vaccination? When does it do more harm than good, and visa versa?

So it is a very complex issue. Can taking a vaccine actually mess with an immune system that would otherwise fend off the disease? To what extent do we overgeneralize on the need for vaccination? When does it do more harm than good, and visa versa?

That's a lot of dollars worth of good questions. Unfortunately the water has gotten so muddied by other things that we may never know the answers with full confidence.

These water muddiers include:
1. Nationalism (our vaccine is better than yours)
2. Big pharma greed (leading to a fudging of the efficacy figures)
3. Narrative construction (a vaccine will be the world's saviour - also deflates the impetus to find out what caused the virus in the first place - not that there's any mainstream media interest in that anyway)

Correction: I mentioned that WIV was manipulating "harmless bat viruses" to make them more contagious to humans - although that's true - that wasn't the case with RaTG13, the closest known match to SARS nCov-2, which was kept at WIV, and appears to have not been harmless even in it's natural form.

There's an interesting article that traces RaTG13 to a Yunan cave and links it to a small outbreak in 2012 that killed several miners who were cleaning the cave of bat feces. The authors hypothesize that this virus, which was collected and stored at WIV, could have mutated in those that it infected - they lived for over 100 days - and may have been 'ready-to-go' without requiring manipulation. The virus was considered non-extant in nature, so it's source would still be an escape from an Wuhan lab, but it may not have required any additional engineering.

I'll try to look at this and other hypothesis in more detail in a different thread but just wanted to make the correction here.

According to this (paywall) article:

"A “very very serious” mutated version of coronavirus has been found in mink farms in northern Denmark. Scientists have warned that the new mutation could spark a new global pandemic and render current vaccine developments obsolete.

So far, 11 people in northern Jutland and one in Midtsjælland have been detected with the mutated strain of COVID-19 that appears to have been transmitted from mink to humans.

Danish prime minister Mette Fredicksen cited a government report which said the mutated virus weakened the human body’s ability to form antibodies, potentially making the current vaccines under development for COVID-19 ineffective."

This is why vaccines will never be a silver bullet. What it does do is provide the drug industry with a self-perpetuating goldmine.

'Oh, that vaccine we just gave you is obsolete - now you need to take this one!'

According to the headlines the Pfizer vaccine is 90% effective.

However, there are a few qualifiers with that.

1. It doesn't prevent Covid, just reduces the severity

2. It's unknown if a vaccinated person is still contagious

3. It's unknown if it's safe for old people

4. It's unknown if it provides long term immunity

5. It's unknown if there are long term side effects

6. It's made with mRNA, meaning it's made of genetic material, which carries instructions to the body's immune system

I don't understand the mRNA bit well, but it sounds a bit creepy. Basically we will become genetically modified humans? Maybe that's fine - i don't know. This is the first time such a technique has been used to develop a vaccine.

The other point about mRNA vaccines is that they are tricky to store, needing to be kept at -80C. They are thawed before use but there's a short window in which they remain viable.

This adds a layer of logistics that will make distribution challenging.

Anyway, the stock market loved it!

Those storage needs just seem so problematic. I'm a bit uneasy about mRNA vaccines to begin with, add to that the question of, what happens to this vaccine when it's not stored properly? Does it, then, not interact with my DNA properly?

I go to the back of the line on this one!

And it seems that this virus mutates quite frequently. I think I remember reading during the original SARS outbreak back in the day that there are both benefits and drawbacks to a virus that mutates frequently. A benefit is that it is more likely to mutate itself out of existence, or at least mutate to where it's harmless. A drawback is that it's harder to create a vaccine for it.

Regarding the need for ultra-cold storage, this is from https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/11/10/world/science-health-world/pfizers-ultraco...

"“The cold chain is going to be one of the most challenging aspects of delivery of this vaccination,” said Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

“This will be a challenge in all settings because hospitals even in big cities do not have storage facilities for a vaccine at that ultralow temperature.”

Indeed, one of the most prestigious U.S. hospitals, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said it does not currently have that capability.

“We’re talking about a vaccine that needs storage at minus 70 or 80. That’s a tremendous logistical issue not only in the U.S. but outside the Western world,” said Dr Gregory Poland, a virologist and vaccine researcher with the Mayo Clinic.

“We’re a major medical center and we don’t have storage capacity like this. That will be true for everybody. This is a logistical obstacle.”

Pfizer spokeswoman Kim Bencker said the company was working closely with the U.S. government and state officials on how to ship the vaccine from its distribution centers in the United States, Germany and Belgium around the globe.

The detailed plan includes using dry ice to transport frozen vaccine vials by both air and land at their recommended temperatures for up to 10 days, she said.

State and local health care providers are responsible for storing and administering vaccines once delivered.

They can be kept in an ultralow temperature freezer for up to six months, or for five days at 2 to 8 degrees C — a type of refrigeration commonly available at hospitals, Bencker said.

The Pfizer storage units can also be refilled with ice for up to 15 days, she said.

But shots will spoil in around five days at normal refrigeration temperatures of slightly above freezing. BioNTech CEO Ugur Sahin said the companies are analyzing if they can extend that for two weeks." (Emphasis added)

My comment here is, define spoil.

As a side note, my confidence in the markets is not helped by seeing how they respond to this less than encouraging development on a vaccine. This level of fickleness exposes a pretty severe instability.

England's (and Australia's) horse in the vaccine race was recently trumpeted as a big success following the release of stage-3 trial results which claimed "90% protection against Covid".

As mentioned earlier, 90% protection is not the same as prevention - it just means that 90% of recipients in the trial didn't develop severe symptoms. (Aside: Not sure how this compares with reports that 80% of people who contract Covid (without any vaccine) will only have mild symptoms - is it the degree of the symptoms?)

The Australian Government called it great news that would result in a "fully-safe Australia". Science magazine reported it as “convincing evidence that [the vaccine] works. ” (Yet another example of a leading science journal lending credibility to dodgy science - i gotta wonder what the fuck is going on with those magazines?) The stock market duly rose by near record levels.

Now the drug company is being called out on it's data. Dr Geoff Porges, a vaccine 'expert' (aside: we're always being yelled at to 'listen to the experts' - but what happens when the experts disagree?), has accused Oxford AstraZeneca of having "embellished the data".

That's a serious accusation. A drug company producing a vaccine to 'save us all' from the scourge of Covid (which, in turn, will make it billions of dollars), is knowingly fudging the data?!!!

It has now come to light that the company made a mistake in administering the doses during the trial. The trial involved participants receiving two doses. In a significant number of participants, they were accidentally given a half-dose in the first instance (due to a manufacturing error) then a full-dose the second time around. Importantly, this group of recipients (from a trial in Brazil) were allunder the age of 55. Bear in mind that Covid is virtually harmless to under 55's anyway.

Those participants that received two full-doses only returned a 62% efficacy rate. The 90% figure came from the accidental mis-dosage.

This raises a lot of questions. Firstly, how did they make such a basic fuck-up? Secondly, what other things have they fucked-up/fudged but are not telling the public? At best, this is "shaky science". At worst, it's willful lying for mega-financial gain.

As Porges notes:

"Confidence comes from transparency of communication and clarity of communication. You need to be completely honest about what you're sharing and really clear about the information. I think AstraZeneca, at the very least, violated those two tenets."

I'm convinced this race for a vaccine, and the huge payoff for the winners, is bringing out the worst in people and science. In addition to what you've pointed out in the article, the following sentences caught my eye:

"The company later acknowledged that the half dose was a "manufacturing issue" and given to the trial participants by mistake." Manufacturing issue? So they admit they injected vaccine that wasn't manufactured properly into people? Lots of people?

"Facing increasing pressure to clarify the data, AstraZeneca chief executive Pascal Soriot said on Friday it would now likely conduct a new global clinical trial to assess the vaccine's efficacy." If we can assume that the Moderna schedule for Phase 3 trials is representative of how long these trials take (http://url.site25.net/7v, and that's just phase 3), then it seems a new trail would take at least two years. (Moderna Phase 3 is scheduled to take one year and three months.) Are they really going to see the trial through to completion before announcing success?

On that note, again with an eye to that Moderna schedule, none of these vaccine candidates can possibly have completed Phase 3 trials, and Phase 3 trials are really all about long term safety. And yet we're being told they're going to ship in December. The Moderna trial won't even be finished until October of the following year, nearly 11 months later!
EDIT: I just noticed that Moderna's Phase 3 trial ends in October of 2022, not 21, so add a year to that.

Seeing as we're dealing with a brand new type of vaccine, one that manipulates our DNA, wouldn't it be prudent to actually complete safety trials? I'd rather take my chances with covid.

From the FDA web page located at https://www.fda.gov/patients/drug-development-process/step-3-clinical-research

"Phase 3 studies provide most of the safety data. In previous studies, it is possible that less common side effects might have gone undetected. Because these studies are larger and longer in duration, the results are more likely to show long-term or rare side effects "

So, there you have it. "Phase 3 studies provide most of the safety data." And it is the Phase 3 trials that all of these vaccine studies are cutting short.

The information you posted shows the growing disconnect between the 'real truth' and the 'message-management' version of it.

For a lot of things it probably doesn't matter too much - just politicians being politicians -but for a DNA altering injection that could be potentially administered to every human on the planet without proper safety trials being conducted?

The other insidious bit is the uptake compliance. Yes, democratic governments will say you don't have to take it if you really don't want - but like big-tech 'user agreement' forms - you will be barred from doing things and/or financially penalized if you don't sign up. Already airline companies are suggesting you won't be able to fly without having had your shots. I imagine most countries will likewise refuse to accept overseas passengers if they haven't had it.

Not a direct response to the previous post, but this story belongs in this thread somewhere:

China Wants Your DNA—and It's up To No Good

https://www.newsweek.com/china-wants-your-dna-its-no-good-opinion-1550998

The story starts:

"We need to further harmonize policies and standards and establish 'fast tracks' to facilitate the orderly flow of personnel," said Chinese ruler Xi Jinping to the virtual G20 Leaders' Summit on November 21. "China has proposed a global mechanism on the mutual recognition of health certificates based on nucleic acid test results in the form of internationally accepted QR codes. We hope more countries will join this mechanism."

China wants a worldwide database of DNA records on qrode. Yep, they want us all to have a qrcode. No doubt they'd prefer it be tattooed on our foreheads.

And they're using COVID as justification for pushing through and making it a reality.

This move to test the Moderna vaccine on children makes no sense to me at all. First off, children are essentially unaffected by this virus, hence no vaccine necessary to protect them. Secondly, children are particularly affected by vaccine side effects. Thirdly, this vaccine has not passed Phase Three trials in healthy adults.

How is this ethically acceptable? It's not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/02/health/Covid-Moderna-vaccine-children.html

Interestingly, they refer to the children as "volunteers".

There is now talk of some companies requiring all employees to be vaccinated. This is another way to enforce total compliance - say it's voluntary but shut anyone who chooses not to take it out of society.

Another point is how long does it provide immunity? It could be as little as 3 months in older people.

I should qualify that first - it was a 'false positive' supposedly.

A vaccine developed at the University of Queensland, Australia (aside: this uni is notoriously influenced by the CCP) used two HIV protein fragments in the construction of their vaccine. This resulted in all the participants developing antibodies to HIV, hence the positive test.

The UQ scientists responsible say that the participants are not at risk of contracting HIV - though trials of the vaccine have been abandoned.

Interestingly, Australian vaccine scientist Nikolai Petrovsky, having reviewed the initial data, tried to warn the government months before it went ahead and invested big-bucks in the vaccine but "No one wanted to listen." (paywall)

“There’s a chunk of HIV protein that they’ve used to attach to the vaccine that was always going to be a problem because it induces most of the immune response against the tag. That was clear in their hamster and mouse data.”

“We were concerned by the level of antibodies that they were generating against the clamp which were against HIV. They didn’t call it that, they just said we’re inducing all of these antibodies against the clamp. But given that the clamp is from HIV obviously that means you’re generating antibodies against HIV."

If Taiwanese health authorities say something it's wise to listen - despite them being banned from WHO - especially because of that actually.

Health minister Chen Shih-chung stressed that "it was not clear to which extent and how long they would protect people".

That's a good point. I've read some reports saying protection may last as little as 3 months. I'm not sure what happens then - do we need to take another course of shots? Will the vaccines still be effective.

I hope it works and we can be done with it - otherwise the world is gonna be fresh out of party tricks.

Yeah there are way too many uncertainties at this point to get too excited about these vaccines. We had news this week of adverse allergic reactions, and that's after, what, the first day of administration outside of trials?

A bit of logical, science based skepticism would be good now. What bothers me about this whole thing is that during this pandemic, we've been told to "follow the science" with regards to wearing masks and social distancing, and I think that's been based on good science. But the science behind these vaccines is that the safety trials, the so called phase 3 trials, last at least one year. They've let the safety leg of the trials go three months tops. So they're saying, follow the science, but not this time. This time, just trust us.

But that's not science. So, should we follow the science, or not?

Another example of how half-baked much of this research has been. Did they ever consider the ramifications of turning out a vaccine that would cause HIV postive tests in the recipients? False or not is a moot point.

No, it's not a moot point. It means that some people would get HIV positive tests and discount them because they had the vaccine, when in fact they may indeed be HIV positive!

WTF were they thinking?

Yeah sometimes i see stuff in second-hand shops - weird looking clothes - i think someone has designed that, then had it manufactured, a retailer has stocked it, then someone's even bought it, now it's here - how did it get that far?

Surely the penny has to drop that using HIV protein in a vaccine is not a good idea - especially as there was a guy who did try to warn both the designers and the government.

I'd say 'What a waste of money' but seeing how we're just printing money now, i suppose it doesn't matter.

That's the key point - 'follow the science' gets bandied around to support whatever the discourse of the day is.

Don't forget that in Australia and the US, the top experts were originally saying 'Don't wear masks' as well. Which i still can't understand why coz there was a ton of evidence that they work.

The other thing is that Covid is way bigger than just science experts. It would be nice to have experts from other fields weighing in as well - for example philosophers - or anyone schooled in logic.

They could explain that if a safety trial takes a year to complete, then it takes a year to complete. Don't throw all that out the window coz you're in a rush. You're just asking for it to backfire.

This could go in the Data War thread as well - it goes to what Dan was talking about with data hacks cutting both ways. It's described as 'a leak' but sounds more like a proactive strike.
"
The Australian’s investigation followed a leak of official CCP records that exposed the personal details of 1.95 million members. It found members and even party branches at some of the world’s largest companies including vaccine manufacturers AstraZeneca and Pfizer, aerospace giant Boeing and at ANZ."

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/asio-probes-chinese-communist-party-members-in-... (paywall)

"The new variant is said to be up to 70% more transmissible, but there is no evidence that it is more deadly.

There is also no proof to suggest that it reacts differently to vaccines."

I wonder if there is any proof to suggest it doesn't react differently? Or is it they just don't know at this stage?

Have read elsewhere that the new variant is less deadly, meaning it's possible it could offer a way out. Wouldn't a more contagious strain that is significantly less deadly perform a similar function to a vaccine?

A new variant could potentially go two dramatically different ways.

1. It makes all vaccines redundant and we're back at square one

2. It de-lethalizes the virus and solves the whole problem

You'd have to wonder with option 2 whether drug companies would ever allow that situation

This is a developing situation. See https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-19-variant-south-africa-spread/.

Video: https://filedn.com/lJ3YxkqPhCQJ55qtOyKrlSu/video/SouthAfricadetectsnewvariantcoronaviru...

Your points of:

A new variant could potentially go two dramatically different ways.

1. It makes all vaccines redundant and we're back at square one

2. It de-lethalizes the virus and solves the whole problem

You'd have to wonder with option 2 whether drug companies would ever allow that situation

Are worth emphasizing as these mutations occur. With the big money at play, including the stock market, how willing will "science" be to admit that the money sunk into the eradication efforts so far will yield less benefit than had been forecast into the markets?

EDIT: Assuming the vaccine becomes markedly less effective over the course of continued mutations, will governments and corporations continue to promote their use, and when pressed, use the excuse similar to the impotent social programs of WWII such as victory gardens and various means of frugality? Yet this time, the difference would be massive corporate profit.

With the big money at play, including the stock market, how willing will "science" be to admit that the money sunk into the eradication efforts so far will yield less benefit than had been forecast into the markets?

Yeah, there's something of the 'fools' paradise' in this.

Assuming the vaccine becomes markedly less effective over the course of continued mutations, will governments and corporations continue to promote their use?

That's like saying will corporations stop looking for ways to increase sales? As mutations arise we'll likely see 'All New Improved' vaccines. I'd be aiming for a perpetual yearly flu-shot scenario if i was big-Pharma boss.

This is something we touched on before - authorities say it 'won't be compulsory' but it will through compliance measures. We talked about 'no jab no fly', now there's this:

"Employers want the power to require workers to get the COVID-19 vaccine and stand them down from work without pay if they refuse, warning that bosses and employees will be left vulnerable if co-workers decline to be vaccinated."

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/call-from-business-to-bar-workers-who-... (paywall)

Prof Ravi Gupta at the University of Cambridge: "This virus is potentially on a pathway for vaccine escape, it has taken the first couple of steps towards that."

Prof David Robertson, University of Glasgow: "The virus will probably be able to generate vaccine escape mutants."

This BBC article says it is "the most concerning element of what is happening with the virus".

Still can't find any info as to whether it produces the same, worse, or more moderate symptoms. A mutation that produces a less lethal virus is quite possible - in fact it's often how pandemics end.

What does this mean for current vaccines?

In their current form they will likely be rendered ineffective. No doubt the company scientists will make adjustments which may or may not counter these mutation - until the next mutation occurs.

The other question is, will these adjustments be subject to safety trials? Or will we just be winging it from here and hoping for the best?

Good points. So much of what is happening doesn't make any sense, and yet we're told to just trust the experts, trust the science. If one didn't know better, they'd assume from the media that these vaccines actually prevent infection, but of course they don't! As you have pointed out, not only do they not prevent infection, nobody knows how long they will last, or, because they have been around for just a few months, what the long term side effects will be.

And now we have these mutations casting even more doubt onto these vaccines, but of course one does not discuss such issues in polite company.

And that's what's so disturbing -- the absolute lack of any public debate about any of this, vaccines, lockdowns, masks. Here is an interesting discussion about the negative effects of lockdown.

The doctor being interviewed has what looks like a worthwhile blog that I'll be checking out.

I became aware of him through this opinion piece.

And here's another interesting read on the history of the development of these vaccines.

And now we have these mutations casting even more doubt onto these vaccines, but of course one does not discuss such issues in polite company.

And that's what's so disturbing -- the absolute lack of any public debate about any of this.

In following news on the mutant viruses in South Africa and the UK, it's noticeable that the responses re the effectiveness of the vaccine are very cagey - usually along the lines that 'we are confident that X vaccine will be effective against any new variants', or the double negative; 'we see no reason why it won't be'.

In the last couple of days, however, a few scientists are starting to break ranks:

Prof Shabir Madhi, who has led trials for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in South Africa, said:

"It's a theoretical concern. A reasonable concern… that the South African variant might be more resistant."

I'm not quite sure why it's still theoretical - the vaccines and mutant viruses have been around for a couple of months - wouldn't you have a pretty good indication by now?

As we discussed before, the motivation from the big players that are rolling out billions of doses of vaccine shots world-wide to say, 'Sorry, they're now less effective' is zero.

This is shaping up as another one of those 'We can't tell you the real truth because of blah blah reason'.

The media hysterics of the UK virus has hit Australia with a snap-lockdown in Brisbane due to a quarantine worker becoming infected and a five day window she was in the community before diagnosis.

I would love to know how the new strain stacks up in terms of severity of symptoms. It's quite possible it could be more benign, though the current death toll in the UK suggests it isn't.

I wonder if we could get to the stage where we have the same level of ramped up surveillance, lockdowns, medication, etc - for something that evolves into being a common cold - i.e just another corona virus.

Yeah, it's all become a bit of a nonsensical exercise in hysterics at this point. In my school, for example, we had complete closure with full online learning from March to the end of last school year, and yet there were no cases in our entire town. None.

Now, we have multiple cases not only in our town, but in our school community (no students, but people connected to the school), and yet it's business as usual as if there were no virus.

So, which is it? Is it a deadly pathogen or relatively harmless bug? My sense is that it spreads very quickly, but is only slightly more deadly than the flu, with most of it's lethality saved for the old and those with serious existing conditions. So, why the hysteria?

So, which is it? Is it a deadly pathogen or relatively harmless bug? My sense is that it spreads very quickly, but is only slightly more deadly than the flu, with most of its lethality saved for the old and those with serious existing conditions. So, why the hysteria?

'Deadly pathogen' sells more newspapers. The media is a huge part of the problem - they don't ask question - just whip up fear to promote compliance with the order of the day.

Lest we forget, the media is a main pillar of society - it's not in the media's interests to question the fundamentals of that - on the contrary - it's about reinforcing the system and getting people to comply with it. Fear is the go-to weapon in this exercise - always has been.

Here's a quote that goes to what you mentioned at the beginning of this thread:

Dr Yang Hui, associate professor, Monash University:

"It is reasonable to have safety concerns over any COVID-19 vaccine, because the development processes have been largely shortened from about 10 years to less than one year. The published data of vaccines being used internationally for emergency purposes are not detailed enough.(Vaccines)need to be continuously monitored for both safety and efficacy, especially their long-term health effects."

I'll bet my farm you won't hear any politician telling us to listen to that particular expert.

Good point regarding the media. I just don't get how they can continue parroting these stories about how many experts say the vaccines are safe when nobody has any data, at all, on any long term side effects. The drug industry has no shortage of drugs once deemed safe but that had disastrous effects. A few that come to mind are Vioxx, Thalidamide, and more recently Oxycontin.

Now we have vaccines that have not even been tested for one year, a whole new class of drug as well. Granted, they may turn out to be very safe and effective. I hope they do. But until they've been tested for a few years, nobody will know.

The drug industry has no shortage of drugs once deemed safe but that had disastrous effects. A few that come to mind are Vioxx, Thalidamide, and more recently Oxycontin.

Now we have vaccines that have not even been tested for one year, a whole new class of drug as well. Granted, they may turn out to be very safe and effective. I hope they do. But until they've been tested for a few years, nobody will know.

Vioxx, Thalidamide, Oxycontin - they are some big names. Guess that's another one of those 'not to be talked about in polite company' topics.

"A coronavirus vaccine developed by China's Sinovac has been found to be 50.4% effective in Brazilian clinical trials, according to the latest results released by researchers."

So:

50.4% effective
no data on how long it provides protection
no data on whether it's effective against new strains
no data on pregnant women
no data on long term side-effects

Let's not forget that Covid is not dangerous for the vast majority of people. The vaccine doesn't prevent Covid, just reduces the symptoms, which are minimal for the young and healthy to begin with - so what's the difference? Why not vaccinate those who are vulnerable (and want it) and let Covid take its course amongst the rest of the population?

I know why that won't be allowed to happen, but it seems to make sense: it's cheaper, the vaccine rollout could be targeted and done in a month or so, life could return to normal...

Let's not forget that Covid is not dangerous for the vast majority of people. The vaccine doesn't prevent Covid, just reduces the symptoms, which are minimal for the young and healthy to begin with - so what's the difference? Why not vaccinate those who are vulnerable (and want it) and let Covid take its course amongst the rest of the population?

Good point. And I get tired of hearing experts say in the media that these vaccines prevent infection. They don't. The medically correct term is disease. They prevent disease, or symptoms, but they absolutely don't prevent infection, and the data is unclear on whether they prevent transmission of those who are vaccinated but infected. Just today I watched some smartly dressed, smug 'expert' talk about how two doses are needed to prevent infection.

I know why that won't be allowed to happen, but it seems to make sense: it's cheaper, the vaccine rollout could be targeted and done in a month or so, life could return to normal...

It also won't happen because they want to sell these vaccines. There's huge money involved. We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars in time.

And this has me worried. Let's say that in the course of Phase 3 trials, the trials that have really just gotten under way although the public is led to believe they've been completed, let's say they find a serious problem. What then? Are these companies and all the governments involved roll over and be transparent. "Whoops! Sorry everybody!" Think of the lawsuits.

Here's a bit of click bait that nonetheless leads to a disturbing story: Death of Florida doctor after receiving COVID-19 vaccine under investigation.

This will be eaten up by the anti-vaxxer crowd, which in some ways is unfortunate because they peddle in a lot of BS and yet this story looks like it really should be discussed and addressed. I'm curious to see how the experts will respond.

From the story, "Michael's wife, Heidi Neckelmann, said he sought emergency care three days after the shot because he had dots on his skin that indicated internal bleeding. "

I think the US has completed something like 7 million vaccinations so far. With those numbers, of course, there are going to be weird coincidences that one shouldn't read too much into. So, let's follow the science. What will the science say about this?

Let's say that in the course of Phase 3 trials, the trials that have really just gotten under way although the public is led to believe they've been completed, let's say they find a serious problem. What then? Are these companies and all the governments involved roll over and be transparent. "Whoops! Sorry everybody!" Think of the lawsuits.

Here's something disturbing - we've talked about how vaccines alter the immune system's response and that old people, the only ones at risk from Covid, have compromised immune systems. So what's the risk that vaccines might actually be dangerous to old people?

Given the Phase 3 trials haven't been completed, as you point out, we don't really know. Now we have this report from Norway on Pfizer vaccine:

"The British Medical Journal reports 23 frail and elderly patients in Norway died shortly after receiving the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. The Norwegian Medicines Agency (NOMA) told the BMJ it has investigated 13 of the deaths so far, and concluded that common side effects of mRNA vaccines, which include fever and diarrhoea, may have contributed to the deaths."

Does that mean we have the absurd situation of having a created a vaccine which is deadly to the people it's meant to protect?

Does that mean we have the absurd situation of having a created a vaccine which is deadly to the people it's meant to protect?

It would appear that that's exactly what it means, at least for some people.

"The nation’s top scientific advisers could recommend the rollout of a second round of immunisations to achieve herd immunity if the original vaccine program fails to control the spread of COVID-19."
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/coronavirus-australia-live-news-double-vaccine-... (paywall)

Sounds like the nations' top scientific advisers' plan is to jab people with anything and everything until they find something that works. I wonder if any safety trials have been done that combine two different vaccines administered to the same person?

Australia’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Paul Kelly, spruiking AstraZeneca vaccine:

“In terms of preventing death, it works 100 per cent of the time. In terms of preventing severe illness, it works 100 per cent of the time.” (paywall)

This statement was based on one small trial in which only 12% were over 55. The control group had one death and two severe cases, whereas the vaccine group had zero deaths and zero severe cases.

Tom Kompas, University of Melbourne professor of economics and biosecurity:

“I would say there was no basis for making that claim. Relying on that sample size is just absurd. You wouldn’t make any statements about that.”

What has the Aus Tennis Open got to do with vaccines? Not much, but it has thrown up an interesting question.

We're told that airlines (and countries) are going to require people to be vaccinated before being allowed to fly. But what if you haven't been vaccinated but have caught and recovered from Covid? Will that be considered equivalent to a vaccine? Or is that a stupid question coz how can anyone make money from that?

Noticed that a few of the tennis stars have actually had and recovered from Covid - but they are still required to do the 14-day quarantine.

On a different note, Israel has already vaccinated 38% of the population. That should give us a good idea of the efficacy, if not long term side effects.

The World Health Organisation convened a meeting of a subcommittee of its global advisory committee on vaccine safety following the Norway deaths, which examined data from the European Medicines Agency and the Swedish Uppsala Monitoring Centre on deaths reported in frail, elderly individuals who had received the vaccine across Europe.

“The current reports do not suggest any unexpected or untoward increase in fatalities in frail, elderly individuals or any unusual characteristics of adverse events following administration of BNT162b2,” it reported.

“Reports are in line with the expected, all-cause mortality rates and causes of death in the sub-population of frail, elderly individuals, and the available information does not confirm a contributory role for the vaccine in the reported fatal events.

“In view of this, the committee considers that the benefit-risk balance of BNT162b2 remains favourable in the elderly, and does not suggest any revision, at present, to the recommendations around the safety of this vaccine.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/science/weigh-merits-ofgiving-covid19-jab-to-the-frail... (paywall)

Having lost trust in the WHO's recommendations, we'll just record this here then check back later to see if it was right or not.

A friend of mine once applied for a job in Japan. Due to the politeness of Japanese culture, when he received a letter from the company a week later, he had to read it several times to work out whether he'd gotten the job or not. (He hadn't)

It's a bit like that with trying to determine the effectiveness of vaccines against the UK and SA variants.

The Headline says: Moderna Vaccine appears to work against new variants

The word 'appears' is the troubling one. So i read on.

Early laboratory tests suggest antibodies triggered by the vaccine can recognise and fight the new variants.

Sounds good, but 'early' and 'suggest' are the qualifiers here.

For the Moderna study, researchers looked at blood samples taken from eight people who had received the recommended two doses of the Moderna vaccine.

Eight people? Hang on, haven't millions around the world been vaccinated by now? Why not do a study with 30 000 people? What's 8 people gonna prove?

The findings are yet to be peer reviewed, but suggest immunity from the vaccine recognises the new variants.

Hopefully the peer reviewer is going to say 'You've only sampled 8 people!'

Blood samples exposed to the new variants appeared to have sufficient antibodies to achieve this neutralising effect, although it was not as strong for the South Africa variant as for the UK one.

Hmm, so it doesn't work well against the SA variant?

Moderna says this could mean that protection against the South Africa variant might disappear more quickly.

Oh, finally the bottom line (which should be he headline): not as effective and protection disappears more quickly.

But Hey! just take it anyway - you'll be supporting a growing industry and boosting the economy - especially Moderna's.

Yeah, I've been taking note of this ambiguous language. Again, we're just supposed to take their word for it. Now with regards to the SA strain, they're saying that they'll be working on a booster, which would mean a third shot.

This is a growth industry!

This is from a letter sent by Dr. Hooman Noorchashm to the FDA and Pfizer. It expands on some common sense concerns we raised earlier.

"I am writing to warn that it is an almost certain immunological prognotication that if viral antigens are present in the tissues of subjects who undergo vaccination, the antigen specific immune response triggered by the vaccine will target those tissues and cause tissue inflammation and damage.

Most pertinently, when viral antigens are present in the vascular endothelium, and especially in elderly and frail with cardiovascular disease, the antigen specific immune response incited by the vaccine is almost certain to do damage to the vascular endothelium. Such vaccine directed endothelial inflammation is certain to cause blood clot formation with the potential for major thromboembolic complications, at least in a subset of such patients.

I am recommending to you, as our lead FDA regulators, not to gloss over the real possibility that vaccinating persons with pre-existing SARS-CoV-2 viral antigens in their tissues could cause that subset of people grave harm — and especially the frail with cardiovascular disease."

The guy is not an anti-vaxxer - on the contrary - he's just pointing out that it's dangerous for the elderly or those who have Covid.

The German government appeared to arrive at the same conclusion - having banned the Astra Zeneca vaccine for over-65's until more data is available.

Of course that didn't stop the barrage of irrational name-calling he was subjected to by the establishment.

WHO's guidance is that the vaccine is safe for everyone - sick, pregnant or otherwise - though curiously not those under 18.

"The vaccine is safe and effective in people with known medical conditions associated with increased risk of severe disease, such as hypertension, diabetes, asthma, pulmonary, liver or kidney disease, as well as chronic infections that are stable and controlled.

Although further studies are required for immunocompromised persons, people in this category who are part of a group recommended for vaccination may be vaccinated after receiving information and counselling.

While pregnancy puts women at higher risk of severe COVID-19, very little data are available to assess vaccine safety in pregnancy.

Nevertheless, based on what we know about this kind of vaccine, we don’t have any specific reason to believe there will be specific risks that would outweigh the benefits of vaccination for pregnant women.

The vaccine should not be administered to persons younger than 18 years of age pending the results of further studies."

At the bottom WHO offers a disclaimer:

"We do not know whether the vaccine will prevent infection and protect against onward transmission. Immunity persists for several months, but the full duration is not yet known. These important questions are being studied."

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-moderna-covid-19-mrna-1273-vac...

Given the survival rate for women under 50 who contract Covid, who are the only ones who will be pregnant, is, according to the CDC, 99.98%, why on earth would you advise pregnant women to take an experimental biological agent for which "very little data are available to assess vaccine safety in pregnancy"?

Here's an alternative to vaccine industry - though i doubt it will get the same mega-support from politicians and science experts.

"An antiviral product used to ensure safe sex is being deployed to fight COVID-19 in Europe - except it will be sprayed up noses instead of on condoms."

"Dr Fairley said the spray stops infection when applied to cells before and after exposure to the virus... and lasts about six to eight hours before needing to be reapplied."

"John Shine, president of the Australian Academy of Science and former CSL chairman, said such products were needed, given vaccines did not prevent transmission of COVID-19.

“Vaccinated individuals will be protected from the worst of COVID-19 but will not be protected from becoming infected,” Professor Shine said. “None of the vaccines that have been approved for use have demonstrated that they can stop transmission.”"

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/starpharma-deploys-safe-sex-antivir... (paywall)

Those bloody conspiracy theorists - they're getting way out of control!

"France's Health Authority made an official recommendation on 2 February that the vaccine should not be used for people over 65. It said more studies were needed before it was rolled out to older age groups.

Other European countries have taken a similar position: Germany, Austria, Sweden and Poland only recommend it for people under 65, and Italy and Belgium for those under 55."

That's an ever-growing list of "dangerous...crackpot" scientists from developed countries who aren't listening to the scientists.

Crazy! Only a tinfoil hat nutjob would suggest that actual studies are needed to demonstrate safety.

Sane, rational people just accept the science before it's been done!

Of course that didn't stop the barrage of irrational name-calling he was subjected to by the establishment.

This is a perfect example of how either side, in this case the anti-anti-vax side, can torpedo an honest, balanced, informed attempt to actually discuss an issue. Dr. Noorchashm clearly states his support of vaccination, "I want to be very clear that I am an ardent supporter of President Biden’s plan to vaccinate 150 Million Americans in 100 days." And yet the author of the poorly designed and misnamed site RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE clearly didn't bother to actually read the letter.

Too bad there's no vaccine for stupidity.

Too bad there's no vaccine for stupidity.

Here's another Australian Premier (QLD) Annastacia Palaszczuk that would do well to get the stupidity vaccine if one is invented.

“For some industries, it may have to be (mandatory). I think the federal government will address …. that because they are the most vulnerable.

“If someone had it, and went into an aged care facility, if they had the UK strain, it would go right through.”

First point, presumably the residents have had the vaccine - so if it works as well as claimed then there's nothing to worry about.

Secondly, the vaccines, as we've said, don't prevent a person catching the virus - they just reduce the symptoms. So even if all the workers are given the vaccine, they can, presumably, still transmit it.

I'm not against people getting the vaccine - if they want it - but forcing people to take some biological agent cooked up by scientists to prevent a disease which may well have been cooked up by scientists - that's another frightening high-tide mark in the state's intrusion into our private lives.

I'm not against people getting the vaccine - if they want it - but forcing people to take some biological agent cooked up by scientists to prevent a disease which may well have been cooked up by scientists - that's another frightening high-tide mark in the state's intrusion into our private lives.

Agreed. And one particularly troubling aspect of all this is that it appears forces are at work to assure that we'll all be getting this vaccine regularly. Already big Pharma is working on boosters for various strains. This is like the war on terror; it's never ending.

So if you accept the notion that COVID will be with us forevermore, like the common cold or flu, then the implication is that big Pharma will push for regular, universal vaccines, forever. This is something that right now does not exist nor is there a need for. So it's a huge change, if it were to happen.

But there's another aspect. Again assuming that COVID is with us to stay, wouldn't it be better for our species to deal with it naturally? Is there really any justification for a permanent, universal, yearly vaccine? It's just one more thing our species will be dependent on, like fossil fuels and Facebook.

Big Pharma has hit pay dirt here.

But there's another aspect. Again assuming that COVID is with us to stay, wouldn't it be better for our species to deal with it naturally? Is there really any justification for a permanent, universal, yearly vaccine? It's just one more thing our species will be dependent on, like fossil fuels and Facebook.

Big Pharma has hit pay dirt here.

'Deal with it naturally'? Where's the money in that?

Relying on technological solutions to man-made problems involves applying downstream fixes to upstream causes.

Malaria is a good example. How many billions have been spent researching malaria vaccines (none of which proved successful long term) when in fact the disease is caused by political corruption - that is - poor water sanitation/management?

(this thread continues here)

Wait... what?

"The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine no longer needs to be kept at ultra-freezing temperatures and can be safely stored inside normal medical freezers — making distribution easier, the firm said in a report Friday.

The makers of the shots, including the German biotechnology firm BioNTech, have discovered the doses can remain at between 5 and -13 degrees Fahrenheit without spoiling — instead of -94 degrees like previously thought, according to the Financial Times."

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/pfizer-says-its-covid-vaccine-doesnt-need-to-be-st...

So, out of the blue, they have found that the vaccine can indeed be stored at a temperature 100 degrees warmer than they first claimed? Not only does this conveniently make their vaccine much more competitive, and hence profitable, it calls into question everything else about it. If nothing else, this means they marketed this vaccine before they understood the very fundamentals of its chemistry. Either that, or they're lying. Neither explanation instills confidence.