Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

FallingAwake

Members
  • Posts

    1,611
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FallingAwake

  1. "The regulatory agency is asking for four to six months of safety follow-up data for kids under age 12, the FDA official said. Just two months of follow-up data was required for the clinical trials in adults." Really pushing the boat out there, FDA. Four months instead of two months of follow-up data?
  2. I don't think it's idiotic or moronic. More like common sense, really. Now we're out of the EU, we can make our own plans. Political parties present those plans to us every now and then, in what are called "manifestos." Sure, if they're sh** plans, that's on all of us. But that's also the point. It's up to us. Our government can no longer pass the buck.
  3. I mean, we're living in interesting times for sure. America is pulling out of Afghanistan after rushing in about a month after 9/11 created a sense of "emergency". How many Americans think, in hindsight, they responded correctly to the war hysteria? Now here we are in another emergency where 100% of the world's population MUST be injected with a "drug" that's been out for less than a year based on a new technology....
  4. I knew the point you were making. I'm suggesting it might be a bit presumptuous. I appreciate the numbers of vaccinated will keep on going up ('cos it can't go down )... but some countries have been harder hit by covid, and some have experience of damage done by previous vaccine campaigns, so I'm simply suggesting levels of vaccine acceptance may be different around the world.
  5. Why do we need a plan? There are approximately 200 countries on the planet that are not in the EU. They don't need a plan.
  6. Anything made of DNA or the various RNA types are, by definition, sequences. These sequences make up bigger things like protein machines, viruses etc. I think the argument against viruses is a red herring. I'd suggest it's a pretty unfruitful line of arguing that won't get you very far, even if it were true. (Personally, I think viruses are real.) Based on patents, we know they've been researching coronaviruses for over 20 years, and they've known about the so-called "novel" aspects of SARS-COV2 for quite a while.
  7. Based on the way Fauci has played the whole boosters thing, they'll deny it's required right up until the time it's required.
  8. The world population is 8 billion. So we're nearly done then?
  9. Thanks for that. At least they're doing a trial, even though it seems a bit late, i.e. started several months after the vaccine already received emergency use authorisation. Still, better late than never I guess. Thanks again for finding this link.
  10. Well, that's good to hear. Why don't Pfizer or Moderna report that on their Fact Sheets instead of saying they have no data in this area?
  11. Well of course he has to add his "pro-vaccination" credentials, lest he be considered one of those "anti-vaxxers" despite doing... umm... science. For some reason he didn't declare his political leaning. Is he pro-Tory or Labour?
  12. Also, can I remind people of what the Moderators wrote, literally one page ago...
  13. New data on coronavirus vaccine effectiveness may be "a wakeup call" https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-vaccines-pfizer-moderna-delta-biden-e9be4bb0-3d10-4f56-8054-5410be357070.html "What they're saying: The study found the Pfizer vaccine was only 42% effective against infection in July, when the Delta variant was dominant. "If that's not a wakeup call, I don't know what is," a senior Biden official told Axios." "Why it matters: Although it has yet to be peer-reviewed, the study raises serious questions about both vaccines' long-term effectiveness, particularly Pfizer's." Here in the UK, we have the Advertising Standards Authority and laws about marketing. I'm wondering if "safe and effective" may need to be modified soon, maybe to "mostly safe (so far...) and partially effective"? Truth in advertising, and all that.
  14. Yeah, I get it. It may indeed be better to take the vaccine rather than get covid. I just think what I wrote is useful for understanding why there may be more "vaccine hesitancy" in pregnant women. Above and beyond the crazy stuff, maybe some of these women have read the labels, discovered that Moderna and Pfizer didn't get enough data for their group, and thought... "OK, me and my baby will take our chances, thanks." I don't think that's an unreasonable viewpoint. I mean, even from a commercial point of view it would have surely made sense. What's the cost of a clinical trial versus the extra millions in vaccine sales? Plus, they could have just asked for a bit more grant money, which is a significant part of what kept Moderna going in the years before they finally made a product. In short... I think the makers themselves have contributed to vaccine hesitancy in pregnant women.
  15. Thanks. I don't find it particularly reassuring, but then again I'm not a pregnant woman (or identify as one). The three paragraphs on the risk seem to boil down to this: - It was tested on lab rats and they were OK. My response: Great, but women aren't lab rats. Where was the clinical trial on pregnant women? - Lots of pregnant women have been taking the vaccine, and they're OK. My response: Great, but why didn't the manufacturers do a clinical trial on pregnant women before unleashing it on the public? - Pregnant women take other vaccines, and they're OK. My response: Great, but this is a NEW type of vaccine (an mRNA one), so surely when a new technology is applied en masse to people who are giving birth to the next generation of human beings, surely a little extra caution is sensible? Again, all of this could have been pre-empted had Pfizer and Moderna themselves done clinical trials on pregnant women, so they could include the results of their trials in their own Fact Sheets, instead of saying they have no data. It may be the case (as your link is arguing) that the risks of Covid outweigh the risks of the vaccines, and I understand that argument. But since we're talking about the next generation of human beings here, it doesn't fill me with confidence that these two vaccine makers couldn't be bothered to gather enough data themselves in regard to pregnant women.
  16. For the record, the Pfizer one says almost the exact same thing, just with their vaccine ("Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine"). https://www.fda.gov/media/144413/download See page 32, 33. The date says 25 June 2021, which is (at the time of me posting this) the same as the one on Pfizer's own site.
  17. I just noticed they use the exact same language on the "Important Safety Information" popup on their site. Source: https://www.modernatx.com/covid19vaccine-eua/providers/ You need to click the "Important Safety Information" tab at the bottom of the page to access this information. I wonder how many pregnant and breastfeeding women have read this part?
  18. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that they're basically saying in a roundabout and legalistic way... effects of our vaccine on pregnant women and breastfed infants? We don't know. I'll fully disclaim this site by saying this is my own personal, non-expert opinion. I'd be interested to know what other people's opinions of this language would be
  19. So, I read this to get the overall gist... The ex-Pfizer scientist who became an anti-vax herohttps://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-vaccines-skeptic/ It reads like a bit of a hit piece really. My summary... all was well until late 2020 when he started questioning the mainstream narrative, and because he caused some people (pregnant women) to question the narrative, he's now a heretic. Politely burn the heretic! Incidentally, you can check out Moderna's own EUA fact sheet to see what they say about taking while pregnant: https://www.modernatx.com/covid19vaccine-eua/eua-fact-sheet-providers.pdf Scroll down to the longer version, Part 11. I've also attached a screenshot. The company itself claims, on its legal documentation: "Vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine associated risks in pregnancy." In the section below it, on Lactation, the Risk Summary reads: "Data are not available to assess the effects of Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine on the breastfed infant or on milk production/excretion." Given that this is OFFICIAL DOCUMENTATION with legal implications (and not just some MSM marketing piece), this seems quite interesting language. Go take a look for yourself at the link.
  20. Directly related to the issues at hand Incidentally, a lot of fuss seems to be around the "invented mRNA vaccines" thing, which one site has apparently "debunked"... https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/3aa2eefd However, maybe it's the MSM that needs to fact-check its own stuff... https://news.yahoo.com/single-most-qualified-mrna-expert-173600060.html "Malone discovered in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection when he was at the Salk Institute in 1988, and he subsequently invented mRNA vaccines, which are being used over 20 years later to combat the spread of the coronavirus." Anyway, what disturbs me is that anyone who speaks out against the current orthodox position is now treated as a heretic. Sounds vaguely familiar. BURN THE HERETIC!
  21. I wish this were a spoof, but even if it's not, it's the kind of future we're being ushered into gradually. France is just a little further down the road already.
  22. Mike Yeadon was a scientific researcher and vice president at Pfizer. He also co-founded a successful biotech. So if you don't believe Yeadon, are you also sceptical of Pfizer, the company who hired him? This is why I'm also sceptic of the sceptics. The label "charlatan" seems to be thrown at people who go against the mainstream current of thought, no matter what their previous credentials. This seems to be happening a lot at the moment.
  23. Well, conspiracies by their nature are hidden, so you probably won't learn about them until much later (and maybe too late?), and often not from the MSM. Case in point: Jimmy Saville. I wonder how many whistleblowers and people were silenced or called "conspiracy theorists" before the truth finally came out? I'm just using this as an example of something I think we can both agree happened, but that we didn't learn about until it was too late (for the victims). I disagree that most conspiracy stuff is BS... in my opinion it's more like some truth mixed in with some BS. But I completely take your point that there needs to be a lot more caution over spreading stuff that impacts people's lives in a very immediate way, i.e. in regard to coronavirus.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.