Face Mask 'Police'

[Technics 1210]

You heard it here first, folks! It was sufficient for every regulatory body, but not for @Technics 1210 ! We all still await his dissertation, breaking down the scientific intricacies of the virus, showing that it is not effective on other strains, showing that mRNA vaccines cannot be easily and quickly altered for new strains in a worst-case scenario, and what trial standards were skipped in the making of this vaccine! I for one cannot contain my excitement and your Nobel Prize awaits you for sure!

Every regulatory body was forced to approve - fast track - on the grounds of fear despite C19 having a survival rate of around 95% without the vaccine.

If you live in the UK, the lockdown can be further extended due to new strains. The 1st vaccine isn't having the desired effect. FACT. Even you have conceded that vaccines can have side effects.

You can masquerade behind your word salad but you don't impress me with biological terminology and such as mRNA etc.

[Tubs]

Every regulatory body was forced to approve - fast track - on the grounds of fear despite C19 having a survival rate of around 95% without the vaccine.

If you live in the UK, the lockdown can be further extended due to new strains. The 1st vaccine isn't having the desired effect. FACT.

You can masquerade behind your word salad but you don't impress me with biological terminology and such as mRNA etc.

... mRNA isn't meant to be impressive. It's A-Level Biology stuff, though you probably never studied it. Besides, the news was all going crazy over the new mRNA vaccine, even someone as inept as you could have picked it up. Insecurity is showing, sir!

Forced to approve? Any proof for that? Fast track doesn't mean any steps were skipped, they were just conducted in a shorter period of time. Again, many researchers working on different vaccines came together to help speed up the process. Conjecture from you once again.

You have no data to suggest it isn't working, none whatsoever.

But we are all still waiting for the dissertation! Though if mRNA intimidates you, perhaps you were the wrong person for the job. Shocker!

[Technics 1210]

Again, the sample size was sufficient for all regulatory bodies. Not good enough for you? Then perhaps you should be a board member.

Again the regulatory bodies accepted the small sample because of pressure from the government due to the fear the virus has created.

Not good enough me, not good, enough for millions who doubt the sensationalism around the C19. Not good enough for the 95% who survived the C19 infection without the vaccine.

Good enough for you though, and your exams though.

[Pakpak]

... mRNA isn't meant to be impressive. It's A-Level Biology stuff, though you probably never studied it. Besides, the news was all going crazy over the new mRNA vaccine, even someone as inept as you could have picked it up. Insecurity is showing, sir!

Forced to approve? Any proof for that? Fast track doesn't mean any steps were skipped, they were just conducted in a shorter period of time. Again, many researchers working on different vaccines came together to help speed up the process. Conjecture from you once again.

You have no data to suggest it isn't working, none whatsoever.

But we are all still waiting for the dissertation! Though if mRNA intimidates you, perhaps you were the wrong person for the job. Shocker!

You're absolutely correct. This myth of it being unsafe because of its shorter time is pretty misleading. All trials went through the same procedures when it comes to ensuring safety, the reason why this vaccine was ready early was:

-Whenever we have clinical trials there are different phases before the drug is approved. Usually all these phases are done separately because a) there isn't a mass pandemic so financially it makes sense to do everything consecutively rather than in one go. So if a particular drug passes the first step then we can go on to step two. This saves tonnes of money and resources as funding isn't infinite nor are resources. For Covid, all these phases were done in one go. So step 1, 2, 3 and so on were done concurrently because of the catastrophic death toll and the lack of time, HOWEVER, if one of those phases showed the drug was harmful then the trials would have stopped right there and then. The trials followed all correct procedures as a normal vaccine trial would in terms of safety
-Almost every spare resource in the medical community was rerouted towards producing a vaccine, even now in our hospitals every single thing that can be spared is spared and provided to aid covid patients (which is why NHS is struggling as there aren't enough resources for the amount of patients we're getting)

Many countries, especially the NHS, are now vaccinating all its staff on the front lines trust me if there was anything dodgy noone would risk a nation's entire health service for a joke.

I don't particularly have time for Technics or his views but putting aside the hostility this is my genuine attempt at anyone who's questioning the trials and their validity.

I have seen live what the virus does, I have had people I know die off it, I have had my loved ones get it and go through it. I completely urge anyone reading to take it seriously and stop believing in nonsense that's peddled around the internet. This is my last post on it on PP, I hope people take care of themselves and realise what a threat this virus is.

[Tubs]

You're absolutely correct. This myth of it being unsafe because of its shorter time is pretty misleading. All trials went through the same procedures when it comes to ensuring safety, the reason why this vaccine was ready early was:

-Whenever we have clinical trials there are different phases before the drug is approved. Usually all these phases are done separately because a) there isn't a mass pandemic so financially it makes sense to do everything consecutively rather than in one go. So if a particular drug passes the first step then we can go on to step two. This saves tonnes of money and resources as funding isn't infinite nor are resources. For Covid, all these phases were done in one go. So step 1, 2, 3 and so on were done concurrently because of the catastrophic death toll and the lack of time, HOWEVER, if one of those phases showed the drug was harmful then the trials would have stopped right there and then. The trials followed all correct procedures as a normal vaccine trial would in terms of safety
-Almost every spare resource in the medical community was rerouted towards producing a vaccine, even now in our hospitals every single thing that can be spared is spared and provided to aid covid patients (which is why NHS is struggling as there aren't enough resources for the amount of patients we're getting)

Many countries, especially the NHS, are now vaccinating all its staff on the front lines trust me if there was anything dodgy noone would risk a nation's entire health service for a joke.

I don't particularly have time for Technics or his views but putting aside the hostility this is my genuine attempt at anyone who's questioning the trials and their validity.

I have seen live what the virus does, I have had people I know die off it, I have had my loved ones get it and go through it. I completely urge anyone reading to take it seriously and stop believing in nonsense that's peddled around the internet. This is my last post on it on PP, I hope people take care of themselves and realise what a threat this virus is.

Thank you for this. He consistently says it's my opinion, in an attempt to deflect everything. As you can see, he has done his usual technique of resorting to personal attacks and appealing to conspiracy. Glad that he has been publicly owned once again.

[Itachi]

Every regulatory body was forced to approve - fast track - on the grounds of fear despite C19 having a survival rate of around 95% without the vaccine.

If you live in the UK, the lockdown can be further extended due to new strains. The 1st vaccine isn't having the desired effect. FACT. Even you have conceded that vaccines can have side effects.

You can masquerade behind your word salad but you don't impress me with biological terminology and such as mRNA etc.

Dude. We studied mRNA in school. I don't think anyone will use it to show off their knowledge. Or also entropy, homeostasis which are school level science (you have a few misconceptions about these entities as I saw in other threads).

[Technics 1210]

Dude. We studied mRNA in school. I don't think anyone will use it to show off their knowledge. Or also entropy, homeostasis which are school level science (you have a few misconceptions about these entities as I saw in other threads).

I don't need to know how vaccines work.

I'm just not going to put my faith into the wishy washy advise from the government that have known to lie in the past.

Which part are you and the majority not understanding?

[Itachi]

I don't need to know how vaccines work.

I'm just not going to put my faith into the wishy washy advise from the government that have known to lie in the past.

Which part are you and the majority not understanding?

Being a former med student, I am pretty familiar of mechanism of actions of vaccines and I've no issues with taking one. I don't need to listen to the for or the against arguments. In this specific case, I'll be more inclined to read about the med journals and making up my mind there forth.

[Technics 1210]

Being a former med student, I am pretty familiar of mechanism of actions of vaccines and I've no issues with taking one. I don't need to listen to the for or the against arguments. In this specific case, I'll be more inclined to read about the med journals and making up my mind there forth.

Like I said I don't need to know how vaccines work because I too know how they work and I don't need a student telling me about mRNA etc.

There are millions of parents in the UK that refuse to vaccinate their kids with MMR - heard about this?

As the public we have every right to question the C19 vaccine; it's fast tracked, unknown side effects, and new strains of the virus are a concern for many.

You have every right to read your med journals and make you mind up, where as I have every right to give time and make my own mind up - given the misinformation, and the survival rate of C19 without the vaccine. (UK 137 in 100000 die from the virus).

[Tubs]

He's crumbling before our very eyes here folks! Finally admits he doesn't have any scientific knowledge of the virus. Thinks his own opinion is equal or more valid than what medical journals say... You love to see it!

[Technics 1210]

Pfizer boss warns on risk of fast-tracking vaccines

https://www.ft.com/content/1a91c897-...b-0b3be185dac8

Pfizer's own boss is warning us of the risks of a fast tracked vaccine, but no, a student knows more.

[Technics 1210]

Vaccine companies, and their poor record and lack of clinical trial data.

Most of the C19 vaccines have missed the peer-review step b]or the sake of appealing to governments and investors.

-------

https://www.transparency.org.uk/coro...na-AstraZeneca

In the wake of the encouraging news about COVID-19 vaccine trials from Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna and AstraZeneca, global attention is on pharmaceutical companies like never before. But in the understandable excitement, the companies in the spotlight risk overlooking a major opportunity: the chance to prioritize transparency and global health over profits, and build their credibility.

This will require a shift in how the industry operates, with increased focus on transparency and accountability in every step of the research and development process. The jury is still out on how far they are willing to go.

These four companies have shown an effort to increase transparency and accountability in their vaccine development efforts. Along with other pharmaceutical companies, they have pledged to “stand with science” and ensure that their vaccines undergo the accepted regulatory and safety standards before applying for approval or marketing authorization. In addition, Pfizer and BioNTech took a step further and joined Moderna by publishing their clinical trial protocol earlier than expected.

Historically, Pfizer has a 100 per cent clinical trial disclosure rate, meaning the results of its clinical trials have been published within 12 months of completion as per legal directives in the United States and the European Union. However BioNTech’s clinical transparency track record, albeit small, is not as strong, with the results from five out of its six clinical trials missing (four of which are overdue). Moderna has a similarly poor track record, with the results from all four of its completed clinical trials being overdue.

Furthermore, the four companies have faced legal action for patent infringement in relation to their respective COVID-19 vaccines. This adds to a growing number of lawsuits against Pfizer, which already has been subject to the largest pharmaceutical settlements in history in 2009, requiring it to pay US$2.3-billion for illegally promoting a range of its products, including Bextra, an anti-inflammatory drug the company marketed for certain usages and doses after it had been officially denied permission to do so by the FDA. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Defense launched an investigation into Moderna in September after it came to light that the company had failed to disclose federal funding in patent applications as required under U.S. law.

For both Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, the early vaccine data has been reported by press releases, an approach met by criticism, including by the editor-in-chief of the Lancet. This practice – as opposed to publishing the full data in a peer-reviewed medical journal – has been described by Dr. Peter Hotez of Baylor College of Medicine as “writing for their investors. … It’s being done in a way that’s oblivious to its public health impact and needs to stop.” Unsurprisingly, the positive news on the vaccine led to a nearly 15-per-cent increase in the price of Pfizer’s share and coincided with the CEO’s previously planned sale of 62 per cent of his stock (amounting to US$5.6-million). This move will only serve to undermine public trust and to buoy anti-vaxxers’ narratives.

Now more than ever, pharmaceutical companies need to uphold standards of social responsibility. For certain, it is challenging to mandate transparency from them while critical information can be shielded under the term “commercially sensitive information.” Still, billions of dollars in public funds have supported both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccine, either as research and development funding or as early investments. In the case of Moderna, bringing its vaccine to licence will have been entirely supported by public funds. Consequently, shareholders are not the only ones to whom pharmaceutical companies are accountable; the general public are also key investors.

Of note, 82 per cent of the global supply of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 78 per cent of the Moderna vaccine has already been bought by high-income countries through confidential bilateral agreements. These agreements undercut multilateral efforts such as COVAX, a global pooled procurement initiative established to guarantee a more equitable global distribution by ensuring vaccine doses for 20 per cent of participatory countries’ population. While AstraZeneca has joined COVAX, the three other companies have not, and have yet to announce how, or even if, they will take measures to ensure global equitable access to their vaccines.

To quote the CEO of Pfizer, Albert Bourla: “If you get it right, you can save the world. And if you don’t get it right, you will not.” But getting it right means much more than developing an effective vaccine – it demands transparency and accountability every step of the way, and a commitment to global equity in terms of deployment.

This is a watershed moment for the pharmaceutical industry as a whole. Let’s hope it embraces this opportunity and makes history for the right reasons.

---------

Again, a PP student knows more.

[Technics 1210]

It goes on, and on, and on.

The student is not even 24, some of these companies/institutions have be around a lot longer for a better pespective of their motives and success, what fast-tracking means and the risks associated with it.

[Tubs]

First article is from November, 2nd article behind a paywall, and the 3rd is a single professor's view. Oh wait, I thought you said scientists can't be trusted now? They can be trusted when one seemingly corroborates your view? What about the numerous peer-reviewed papers regarding the vaccine?

You see this folks, he's resorting to cherry picking now!

He's falling apart at the seams! He has no data to support his assertions. And the FT article is behind a paywall, so I doubt he even read it and only read the headline (which I did with the bell's palsy article, as proof of vaccines causing it, when the article itself even said there is no evidence that the vaccine caused it!). I'm glad we can all see him for what he is, a science-denying quack.

[Technics 1210]

@Tubs I posted 3 articles, and you are complaining about 1 article you cannot read because it's behind a paywall, and ignore the other 2 which falsify your claim, in particular the article which states the vaccines skipped the peer-review proccess and the companies have a poor track record in producing vaccines.

The articles cited all agree with what I and most of the public who question the vaccines.

Even if an article is from November, you should have data of how effective the vaccine has been to those administered to public, which you don't have.

Done with with the keyboard student, he's obviously ruffled since yesterday - he can carry on with his smilies and pseudoscience, the student knows more than the industry experts - laughter is the best defence mechanism after all - masking his ignorance of the scientific process.

PS: Sign up for the FT trial, you'd now how to if you understood the process.

Love it.

[Tubs]

@Tubs I posted 3 articles, and you are complaining about 1 article you cannot read because it's behind a paywall, and ignore the other 2 which falsify your claim, in particular the article which states the vaccines skipped the peer-review proccess and the companies have a poor track record in producing vaccines.

The articles cited all agree with what I and most of the public who question the vaccines.

Even if an article is from November, you should have data of how effective the vaccine has been to those administered to public, which you don't have.

Done with with the keyboard student, he's obviously ruffled since yesterday - he can carry on with his smilies and pseudoscience, the student knows more than the industry experts - laughter is the best defence mechanism after all - masking his ignorance of the scientific process.

PS: Sign up for the FT trial, you'd now how to if you understood the process.

Love it.

Nothing falsified the scientific consensus, there are numerous peer-reviewed articles about the virus' efficacy.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4826

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2639-4

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...661-1/fulltext

Boom. Owned again. Peer-reviewed articles supersede articles that just take opinions of academics.

You simultaneously appeal to the experts but say that the experts have no clue. Dishonesty, again. You only follow your bias, you don't look at the totality of evidence. I have never once said I know better than the scientists, every position I take here is backed by evidence and data from the experts. You appeal to conspiracy when the evidence is not on your side, because you are dishonest.

I am so happy that you admit you don't have the requisite knowledge to break down the virus, or even understand how it works! Finally some humility. And I know rudimentary terms like 'mRNA' scare you, so maybe don't try and read the papers I sent you.

You got absolutely owned and I am loving it!

Still waiting for the scientific papers that say science leads to god.

[KingKhanWC]

You are the one who loves to bring up that I'm a 'scientist' (I am not, I am a being trained as one, but I have far more knowledge of science than you), I'm just pushing back on what you say. You are insecure since you love to bring up my credentials, I suppose it's to cover a lack of yours. Again, this isn't my opinion, it is the work and findings of the experts. Yet you think you and your pseudoscientific worldview knows better. Laughable.

What couldn't Fauci suss about the virus? If you're talking about the masks, there was uncertainty about asymptomatic transmission, and they didn't want a mask shortage for health workers. The quote you love about Fauci not recommending masks is from March, and then the CDC advised masks in April and Fauci followed their advice. The first case of corona was at the end of January in the US, so it didn't take him a 'year to suss the virus'. Dishonesty again.

You can't compare the time it takes for mechanistic understanding of the virus and the symptoms and creating a vaccine. First of all, the vaccine took 10 months. Secondly, it is much easier to sequence a genome of a virus and use it in an mRNA vaccine to trigger an immune response and test the efficacy of that vaccine than it is to test asymptomatic spread (especially during a pandemic). I talk more about asymptomatic transmission lower down. There, owned again.

So again, please tell us a scientific breakdown of the virus and why it is bad, why it may not work on new strains (not less effective, you said it may not work at all), and how the nature of mRNA vaccines doesn't allow for a quick alteration of the vaccine to accommodate new strains which may be vastly different (spoiler alert: they do)? I suppose you'll dodge this again.



Well, despite constantly attacking my academic record which I have proof of, you have yet to state yours. I'll assume you don't have one, which is honestly fine. But you really shouldn't be attacking someone who does have one, if you don't have your own.

I highlighted the changes in Fauci's decision up above, and how the vaccine was made quickly.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-f...-idUSKBN26T2TR
This corroborates what I said.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/04/...cy-gone-quiet/

Here shows the CDC's rationale about wanting to avoid a shortage of masks for healthcare workers, who have absolutely no choice but to be very close to covid patients. Non-healthcare workers were at less risk, so there was less priority for the medical masks. They did however, say that cloth coverings were recommended. And it was soon after this briefing that the CDC were advocating for masks, because there were enough masks for healthcare workers then.

http://med.stanford.edu/content/dam/...issionShip.pdf

This paper was published on 12th March, after Fauci made his 8th March comments. Even this study shows that it cannot be fully determined what the extent of asymptomatic spread is fully, but that there is supporting evidence that a significant number of transmissions are from asymptomatic people. So things were very uncertain even at March time.

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-...e/transmission

Even these studies, with the earliest being June 2020 show uncertainty, but supporting evidence of asymptomatic transmission. It is very, very difficult to test for this, but a few of the studies show up to a 28% rate of asymptomatic infection in children. That is not a trivial number. And the CDC and Fauci were advocating for masks before any of these studies came out.

Also, since you seem to think Fauci had an agenda to make things harder for Trump, why don't you address how Trump consistently downplayed the virus, told people to go out, was very outspoken in his anti-mask stance, talked about putting lysol (detol) in the bloodstream, fired the pandemic response team in 2018?

There.

Thanks but I didnt request a colllege essay. When debating just write the points in summary.

The reason why Fauci said masks dont work is now known. He has admitted he lied in order to save masks for essential workers, thus meaning he allowed the viris to spread if masks make a huge difference. Fauci is the don and head of the pandemic, his views influence the government. Trump was following Faucis orders until he realised the man is a liar , fraud, causing more spread.

If you want to follow the advice of liars , fraud do so but everyone is entlighted to do what they want as long as they follow the laws of the land.

[Tubs]

Thanks but I didnt request a colllege essay. When debating just write the points in summary.

The reason why Fauci said masks dont work is now known. He has admitted he lied in order to save masks for essential workers, thus meaning he allowed the viris to spread if masks make a huge difference. Fauci is the don and head of the pandemic, his views influence the government. Trump was following Faucis orders until he realised the man is a liar , fraud, causing more spread.

If you want to follow the advice of liars , fraud do so but everyone is entlighted to do what they want as long as they follow the laws of the land.

Asked for a timeline of evidence of data, got them, isn't able to understand the studies and realises he got absolutely OWNED, so says the post was too long. Such a dishonest person.

A two-for-one demolition job if I do so say myself. I'm here all week guys, demolishing pseudoscience and educating those who don't understand science at all. Hope you enjoyed the show.

[KingKhanWC]

Asked for a timeline of evidence of data, got them, isn't able to understand the studies and realises he got absolutely OWNED, so says the post was too long. Such a dishonest person.

A two-for-one demolition job if I do so say myself. I'm here all week guys, demolishing pseudoscience and educating those who don't understand science at all. Hope you enjoyed the show.

lol.His remarks had little to do with data, something you suggested. Or are you denying Faucis own admission, he lied in order to enusre masks are available for essential staff?

[Tubs]

lol.His remarks had little to do with data, something you suggested. Or are you denying Faucis own admission, he lied in order to enusre masks are available for essential staff?

I already addressed how one of the reasons was how he didn't want there to be a shortage of masks for health workers. He also followed the CDC after their recommendations changed.

Stop trying to squirm away from this. You got the data you asked for. Also, this obsession with Fauci is moving away from the whole point anyway, you just have one talking point you can latch onto.

You.
Got.
Owned.

[KingKhanWC]

I already addressed how one of the reasons was how he didn't want there to be a shortage of masks for health workers. He also followed the CDC after their recommendations changed.

Stop trying to squirm away from this. You got the data you asked for. Also, this obsession with Fauci is moving away from the whole point anyway, you just have one talking point you can latch onto.

You.
Got.
Owned.

You havent answered my question and your delusions of college have got the better of you. Again...

are you denying Faucis own admission, he lied in order to enusre masks are available for essential staff? Yes or No? Lets also add, with his false words did he put millions in the US and around the world at risk ? Yes or No again.

[Tubs]

You havent answered my question and your delusions of college have got the better of you. Again...

are you denying Faucis own admission, he lied in order to enusre masks are available for essential staff? Yes or No? Lets also add, with his false words did he put millions in the US and around the world at risk ? Yes or No again.

I've addressed this time and time again. Throughout the Western world, masks weren't recommended. Fauci wasn't unique in that respect. He did the right thing in ensuring that health workers got them, and as I said before, the work on asymptomatic spread wasn't done at that time, it took many months until significant data was found. To suggest he purposely lied, rather than not having all the information is disingenuous.

America's aversion to social distancing and lockdowns contributed far more than masks. Fauci told people to use cloth coverings from home, too, which you don't mention.

Again, you keep clinging to Fauci because you think you have something there. It's embarrassing how you really want your anti-mask agenda to be true, when there is no evidence on your side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfbH3oko9SA

Here is a video I just found, and Fauci says exactly what I said was his and the other scientist's thought processes. When new data was available, the policies changed. And he mentions the cloth coverings which he advocated for. That buries your argument if you're intellectually honest.