Booster Shots Appear To Offer Protection Against Omicron COVID-19 Variant
Pfizer/BioNTech reports that a third shot significantly neutralizes the emerging variant.

Preliminary laboratory research by Pfizer/BioNTech finds that a third booster shot of its COVID-19 vaccine successfully neutralizes—that is, blocks—the omicron variant of the virus from entering and infecting cells. The researchers tested the new variant against antibodies produced by people one month after they had been inoculated with a third booster dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. They report that the boosted level of antibodies "provides a similar level of neutralizing antibodies to Omicron as is observed after two doses against wild-type and other variants that emerged before Omicron. These antibody levels are associated with high efficacy against both the wild-type virus and these variants."
In the press release reporting their initial laboratory results, the company also notes that the antibodies produced after two doses are 25 times less likely to neutralize the omicron variant than they are for earlier versions of the coronavirus. Nevertheless, the researchers believe that two doses of the vaccine may sufficiently prime T-cells, the next level of immune response, that people may still be protected against severe forms of the disease.
This news follows on less happy preliminary research from South Africa reported earlier this week that tested the omicron variant against antibodies produced by one group of participants who had received two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and another group who had been previously infected with an earlier COVID-19 variant.
The researchers reported a 40-fold decline in the ability of antibodies produced by two doses of the vaccine to neutralize the omicron variant. On the other hand, five of the six people who had been previously infected by an earlier variant showed a higher ability to neutralize the omicron variant. "Previous infection, followed by vaccination or booster is likely to increase the neutralization level and likely confer protection from severe disease in Omicron infection," suggest the researchers.
Keep firmly in mind that these are very preliminary laboratory results that need to be confirmed by real-world epidemiological evidence with respect to breakthrough infections and disease severity. Nevertheless, these results corroborate that people who have already gotten two doses of COVID-19 vaccines or have already recovered from a prior COVID-19 infection should go get a booster shot and that people who are not yet fully vaccinated should delay no further.
In case these lab results don't hold up in the real world, vaccine makers are already working on tweaks to their inoculations that specifically target the omicron variant. The updated vaccines could become available as early as March 2022. The COVID-19 virus variant rollercoaster should spur vaccine makers to develop and deploy universal coronavirus and influenza vaccines and, despite all evidence to the contrary, one can hope for speedy regulatory approval of them.
Disclosure: I mixed and matched my earlier Moderna inoculations with a Pfizer booster dose in late October.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
My pay at least $300/day. My co-worker says me! I’m really amazed because you really help people to have ideas how to earn money. Thank you for your ideas and I hope that you’ll achieve more and receive more blessings.ggh I admire your Website I hope you will notice me & I hope I can also win your paypal giveaway.
Visit Now ..............Extreme-Earning
Single Mom Makes $89,844/Yr in Her Spare Time on The Computer Without Selling Anything.KJH you can bring from $5000-$8000 of extra income every month. working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger.
The potential with this is endless….. WorkJoin1
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FGh And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it........VISIT HERE
So wait, what I'm hearing is the Omicron came because of unvaccinated individuals but unvaxxed folks had no prior protection but it evolved with out vaxxed folks causing this to be better than the two shots they received when it didn't need to because unvaxxed have zero protection, but a third shot will take care of this variant that the unvaxxed caused and knew it needed to evolve to get past two shots?
The usual suspects will be along soon to rebuke you for asking heretical questions. Because asking questions is science denial, dontcha know?
And racist. Don't forget racist.
Seems like people are ingoring one side of the question. If vaccination reduces infections (which may be true, but if so it's a small reduction and lots of people get infected anyway), then it should reduce the speed at which mutations emerge. So there is perhaps some validity to the claim that unvaccinated people contribute to the emergence of variants. But everyone seems to be completely ignoring the selection pressure that the vaccines create.
Seems obvious to me (a non-expert) that mass vaccination is really a big part of what drives the emergence of vaccine resistant variants and that had vaccination been focused on those at highest risk, they would likely have worked better for longer for those who really stood to benefit the most.
Zeb agree with you, I find myself being more snarky in thought and written word when as Sandwich says above you can't seem to have an open discussion on this.
then it should reduce the speed at which mutations emerge
In a spherical cow model, where a bowling ball and a feather fall at the same speed, yes. In a model where humans are dropping dead by the hundreds of thousands and we have yet to find a dead colony of bats, it's reasonable to surmise that not every conception of immunity translates in any meaningful way to a reduction in mutation.
"In a spherical cow model, where a bowling ball and a feather fall at the same speed..."
Show that a spherical cow can be reduced to... (Shudder).
"Show that": your clue that the next 90 exam minutes were going to be filled with pain...
Evolutionary pressure states that the mutations are more likely to come from the vaccinated if infection rates are not wildly far apart. The study posted yesterday from Britain said unvaccinated got infected by a family member at a 38% rate while the vaccinated got infected at a 25% rate, no data on the variances. But that is not a huge statistical delta.
If you looked at the margin of error in the British study, there was no statistical delta at all. All the data available and they contract traced 204 individuals for 138 positive infections. That gave them a 95% CI and +/-14%. Getting 38% and 25% is just statistical noise. And even that is only 8 cases in the unvaccinated for every 5 cases in the vaccinated.
GB has a population of 100M and certainly has tens of thousands of cases to potentially sample. Do garbage science, get garbage conclusions.
Lol, so even worse than initial claims. Thanks for the variances, I didn't read the entire report yesterday.
you mightnnot be an "eggs spurt" but you have it exactly right. Omicron so far has almost exclusinvely infected those who have been injected. There IS a selection FOR mutation amongst the injected, too. Seems the material u=injected outs stress upon the active viral particles trying to invade a new host, and this causes inaccurate reproduction of the genetic material as the virus reproduces wihtin the cels of its host. Part of this is because the injected genetic material tends to occupy the cells of the host and is not as effective as an uninjected victom, thus not as many of the vrial particles die s they are attacked by the weakened not-quite-accurate antibodies found in the infected cells. More survive, but with pressure agasint them, and thus mutate. The pattern of mutation in any virus is always toward greater ease in transmission (infecting more new hosts) but at the same time greatly reduced damage to the host. Thus as a virus goes down the mutation pathways, it is more able to infect new hosts but does not harm those new hosts as severely as the non-mutated virus would. The fact that Omicron has come from areas with relativel high injection rates fits this pattern. In areas where fewer have been injected, Omicron does not seem to be spreading much.
SO this really IS support fot the idea that we are in reality in a pandemic of the "vaccinated".
Except both delta and omicron emerged in populations with low vaccination rates. In theory yes vaccination could select for resistant variants but also widespread infection contributes to mutation which is what vaccines hinder. So depends on which effect is greater at the time.
"the Omicron came because of unvaccinated individuals"
If that's what you are hearing, you are hearing things. Nobody knows in what host bodies the mutations occurred. Mutations are more likely to occur among the unvaccinated or those who have not been previously infected.
Mutations are more likely to occur among the unvaccinated or those who have not been previously infected.
How many times do you have to be linked to literature on evolutionary pressure or real world examples like antibiotic resistant bacteria?
You don't seriously believe he reads the links, do you?
He doesn't even read his own.
Yes, and I also asked those types of questions, but Jesse isn't trying to convince a dishonest, venal lying fuck like Mike: he's trying to help everyone else listening to the rhetoric.
For which I earnestly say, "Thank You."
Bailey is absolutely one of the biggest bullshit artists "contributed" to this place. Anyone who believes a word he says is a damn fool.
How can u have a mutation of something that has NEVER proven to actually exist? But u can have a mutation of a Gain of Function laced shot. The ONLY folks ACTUALLY getting sick of the "moronic"..., r those that took the previous "versions" of the "shot to save humanity". Each shot chips away at your NOW..., sorry ass immune system. Why don't u spend a minute in that basement of yours and look into WHO died during the Spanish Flu.
The Phucko Knows
Headline: People Selling Product Confident Assert That Product Work And You Should Buy Product.
Chalk mixed with water looks like milk so it is milk
Headline: People
Selling ProductPushing Graft Con Assert That Product Works And You ShouldBuy ProductEncourage Or Force Neighbors To Consume Product Paid For With Stolen $$$.FIFY
Wasn't seeing pharmaceutical companies as greedy and evil always liberal political territory?
I've always wanted pharmaceutical companies to turn a profit. I never wanted them to have the government force people to use their products in order for them to earn a profit.
The left seems like they hated pharmaceutical companies up until they had enough presence in government to force you to use their products, and now they love them.
It's part of the general tendency of the Left these days to chirp "They're a private company! They can do what they want!"
Left unspoken is the proviso that said private company MUST be doing the Left's work. If they aren't then the "argh greedy capitalists and their running dogs" routine comes out.
There wasn’t one word in Bailey’s blog post about forcing Pfizer booster shots on anyone.
Can we never have an article or discussion about COVID vaccination that considers them in light of whether are a good _voluntary_ choice. Are we incapable of separating discussion of mandates?
We're here to discuss issues related to human liberty. Mandates are a lot more relevant than the vaccines. Making sure the choice is voluntary is more relevant than whether it's a good choice.
I don't think Bailey is being unlibertarian. But most of these articles are neither one way or another when it comes to libertarian issues.
How about an article that just informs readers on a subject without needing to push a political angle?
As long as mandates are on the table, there is always the looming political issue. And people are here to argue about political issues.
If the public health people had stuck to honest information and voluntary measures, then perhaps things would be different. But they didn't. So it's all political. And that's their fault, not that of the people who don't like what they have done. Right up until 2 years ago the conventional wisdom in public health was that coercive measures are a bad idea.
I'm beginning to think no. I can't get beyond everyone thinking I'm a jackboot thug because I think the vaccines are good.
Apparently, there are only two choices.
1. The vaccines don't work and mandates are evil
2. Vaccines work and everyone should be forced at gunpoint to get them.
How about:
- Mandates are evil (I won't budge on this one).
- The vaccines work, but not nearly as well as we were initially told they would.
Everyone hoped that the vaccines would put an end to covid as a major concern. But they haven't and it's become pretty clear that they won't. People need to stop pretending that they work they way they wish they did.
Fairly much agree. But I would add that they work very well to prevent serious illness and death and if that means they reclassified as therapeutics, that doesn't take away from the fact that they are the best weapon we have against COVID.
Best is still up for question. They are even finding simple thinks like D3 vitamins help.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32252338/
Problem is those claiming vaccines are the best are generally the same people attacking any and all other treatments, see Horse Dewormer.
Agreed. I find it repugnant that people actually try to discredit potentially lifesaving medicines or treatments, which ironically includes vaccines.
But you are touching on a problem, people have to stop painting with a broad brush and imputing onto everyone who is a proponent of the vaccines the beliefs of supporting mandates, attacking other treatments, supporting government overreach, and the like.
Can you cite me doing what you claim? And if you cite jeff or sarc it is because they post 30 times on what Americans NEED to do and only say they are against mandates after their diatribes get called out. They are also the ones attacking all other treatments. Outside of that tribe can you find one instance of someone here doing what you are claiming? Because everyone i see is saying get vaccines if you want, use other treatments if you want, no mandate. This includes the vast majority of the GOP leaders.
JesseAz,
I'm not sure what claim you are talking about. One of my claims is to not paint with a broad brush for those who are proponents of the vaccine also supporting other things like mandates. My other claim is that vaccines are effective. Those are my claims. Which one would you like a cite for?
"But you are touching on a problem, people have to stop painting with a broad brush and imputing onto everyone who is a proponent of the vaccines the beliefs of supporting mandates, attacking other treatments, supporting government overreach, and the like."
Then you should probably shut the fuck up, forever.
Wow. You seem fun.
You keep referring to a broad brush as you paint any people questioning the vaccine as conspiracy theorists.
The few people attacked here for appearing to be for mandates are a deep there are no broad brush attacks. I explained why those few are targeted below, because they are bullshit artists.
GG,
You are trying to discredit them. At least be honest with yourself with the position that you are taking.
Jesus. What's wrong with you?
IS... I literally gave you the instance of vaccines for children as an example and you ignored it.
Go and learn about the statistics over thepast year inIsrael.. nubmers and percentages vaccinated, boosted, then deaths, serious adverse reactions.... read the numbers from their government who report them without anya genda. just statistics.
NOW come back and try and tell me "they work, and don't cause much death".
I've read those numbers and they are a signficant part of why I WILL NOT take the shot.
Now go and learn about how most of India, when they were being eaten alive by the virus used "horse-dewormer" and beat the disease. For about eight bucks per person.
After that come back and tell us how right wonderful and good the press and government have been with us here in the US.
Wrong. The best weapon is turn your TV off and stop wearing your diaper on your face. Walla.... Kungflu goes away. As the only thing pushing this false narrative out is but theater for the mindless.
The Phucko Knows
I don't see what is so hard to understand. As soon as the country at large adopted the idea that moral questions should be answered by scientific data, this was the inevitable result. When Pfizer stands to make BILLIONS from the mandates and grants of the government, is it really a shock that people- especially people who don't like mandates- might possibly question Pfizer's motives and science?
It hasn't helped that many of the folks pushing "Vaccines are good" including Mike, here, didn't stop there. They went on to moral shaming of people showing any bit of skepticism or reluctance. Their position ultimately came down to:
"The science says vaccines are good, so you have a responsibility to get vaccinated. And if you don't get vaccinated you are selfish. And if the government decides to force you not to be selfish, well, I won't support it, but I won't really complain either. "
This is the rules of the game that the "Follow the Science" people have created, and so it is COMPLETELY unremarkable that the opening move *on both sides* of the debate is to politicize the Science.
Okay, fair enough. I guess my question to that is, why continue to perpetuate such extreme positioning.
Read the comments here. Anyone who remotely agrees that vaccines are good gets lambasted as a jackbooted thug licking boots. Then it turns into screams about mandates and how the science behind vaccines is all the result of Big Pharma and government conspiracies.
I don't understand getting angry about hyperbole and hysteria and then turning around in engaging in hyperbole and hysteria. Isn't that just feeding the beast that people claim they don't like? Isn't that just two sides of the same coin at that point?
"I guess my question to that is, why continue to perpetuate such extreme positioning."
Because Tribes, man. What else?
When California mandated that children get COVID vaccines, I thought we would have a perfect opportunity to unite the tribe. Here we had a situation where no science really disagreed- kids faced next to zero risk from COVID, so forcing them to vaccinate was forcing them to undergo a medical procedure for the protection of others.
All I asked was if the people normally in these threads would take a second to criticize the governor and condemn that action on a meaningless internet post. They wouldn't do it. They had all sorts of excuses of why they didn't *need* to criticize the decision. They claimed that "not supporting" the decision was enough. And then they eventually said it just "didn't excite them enough" to criticize.
In reality, they would happily ignore a massive abuse of state power because criticizing it would mean joining sides with evil trumpers.
Unlike you, I have several times noted my support of the vaccines. But I just don't argue their efficacy online. Because the only people arguing the efficacy online DON'T CARE ABOUT THE SCIENCE. They care about justifying their preferred political outcome.
"Unlike you, I have several times noted my support of the vaccines"
This was inartful, I appologize. I should have said:
Unlike you, I have several times noted my support of the vaccines without getting called a jackbooted thug. This is because I don't argue their efficacy online, and instead spend most of my time arguing against the societal pressure for people to vaccinate "voluntarily". I don't argue their efficacy online, because the only people arguing the efficacy online DON'T CARE ABOUT THE SCIENCE. They care about justifying their preferred political outcome.
Wow, that's not true at all.
Does everyone here see a devil behind every tree?
Anyone who remotely agrees that vaccines are good gets lambasted as a jackbooted thug licking boots.
Weird. I see sarc/jeff/white mike constantly attacking conservatives saying vaccines are good but no to mandates.
Can you cite someone that has attacked someone solely for claiming vaccines are good? Most of the attacks here have been the idiots claiming any alternative treatment than vaccines are bad, not the other way around.
Read my comments and responses to me below. Moreover, I see sarc/jeff/white mike getting called out for believing in mandates quite often when they simply argue for the effectiveness of vaccines. Heck, you can see that happen to Jeff below.
And this is where you are wrong. Jeff for months said people need to wear masks before government needs to wear masks as one example. They have all attacked every non vaccine treatment.
They only state they are against mandates after being called put. It is a bullshit rhetorical trick they use to claim neutrality. And each one continues to attack the gop whose stance in general is get vaccinated but no mandates. Do you honestly not see that?
Not one person here has said to not get vaccinated. Many if us point out the claims of what the vaccines do are bullshit based on real world statistical data such as no correlation between infection rates and vaccination rates.
If you can't see what those 3 are doing I can't help you.
before government needs to wear masks as one example.
before government makes you wear one*
He changes stances after being called out
"Anyone who remotely agrees that poisons are good get lambasted..." fixed it for you.
Because it's ACTUAL science vs. Science-ism. Which is nothing more then a religion.
The Phucko Knows
Nice False dichotomy. Seeing as most conservatives are saying vaccines do help, but are not perfect, but you should get them. AND saying mandates are bad.
For the benefit of the thread: Mike doesn't want a discussion that includes mandates because that puts him in the uncomfortable position of having to say he doesn't support mandates.
No.
Don't Ask Questions
Just Consume Product
Then Get Excited for Next Product
The mass media consumption model applied to public health.
What are we seeing now as far as severity of omicron goes? From what I've heard it is generally fairly mild. If that is the case, is there really a good reason to push everyone to get vaccinated for it? It seems like natural immunity is better and longer lasting than the vaccinations. Given that and that we don't know what the long term effects of the vaccines are, it doesn't seem like a very good idea to recommend vaccination for everyone (let alone try to force it on everyone).
"Serious side effects that could cause a long-term health problem are extremely unlikely following any vaccination, including COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccine monitoring has historically shown that side effects generally happen within six weeks of receiving a vaccine dose."
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/safety-of-vaccines.html
Jeff I hate to nitpick because I'd like you thoughts on this but isn't a 99.98 chance of death and like 99 with effects below 65 also tied to the words "extremely unlikely" yet we have created a mass hysteria and lockdown machine over that?
I'm not saying all of the hysteria is justified, but there are more considerations than just death to consider when discussing the virus.
And most people are saying there are “more considerations than just surviving to consider when discussing the” mRNA vaccine/therapeutic/whatever someone wants to call it.
Both may have their valid arguments.
I guess the world missed your great concern over the Flu over the last few hundred years. The CDC says only 6% (they've been consistent with that number from April 2020 to today) of the ridiculous false total of 777,000 have ACTUALLY died of Corona. Do the math.... Thats 46,000 folks. Which is about the same number that die of the flu EVERY YEAR!
The Phucko Knows
People should make up their own minds, but I think that with a vaccine technology that has never been used at this scale before, it is wise to be a little more cautious. The odds may be very small, but the potential consequences are very large if there turns out to be any long term cardiac or reproductive effects, for example.
One must also weigh the possibility of potential risks of the "vaccine" against one's personal risk from the virus. If you're 85 and have diabetes and COPD, there's not much down side to taking a chance on the shots. If you're 25 and the picture of health, maybe be more cautious.
Yes. And if people would stop pretending that these work like a smallpox or polio vaccine which can eradicate a virus, we could actually discuss these things sensibly.
So does that apply to the new mRNA vaccines? I thought there was no historical data on those.
From the Tea party news source, ABC:
So much for the idea that the establishment media marches lockstep to push a single unified narrative that the vaccines are totally and completely safe and effective.
The media's narrative has been pretty consistent: This disease is scary, everyone should be equally afraid. The Omicron variant has caused 0 deaths so far, yet the media wants you to be terrified of it.
That's funny, that is not the reporting I've seen.
The reporting I've seen has been along the following lines:
- Omicron is a new variant
- We don't know much about it yet
- It has a lot of mutations compared to the previous ones
- It seems milder than the previous ones
- There have been zero deaths so far
- People should be cautious
I haven't seen anyone being hyperbolically afraid of it.
I'm seriously starting to think Diane is a Russian disinformation worker or something. He (she?) is constantly at it, trying to push every angle of misinformed argument.
I'm seriously starting to think Mike is a Russian disinformation worker or something. He (she?) is constantly at it, trying to push every angle of misinformed argument.
“Russians are under muh bed!
Bitch, he's been commenting here for years. Funny how anyone who doesn't cleave to your preferred narrative is a "disinformation agent," when you're not muting them over the mildest of rebukes.
"I'm seriously starting to think Diane is a Russian disinformation worker or something"
For the benefit of the thread, if there is a disinformation agent here, it is Mike Laursen.
People argue, I get that. And as we see above, it can get heated. But a person interested in disinformation is here to sow chaos. The easiest way to do that is to show up in every thread trying to look reasonable while shamelessly lying.
For example, here is mike saying he would "never trust Rolling Stone" after pushing their Ivermectin Hoax story a mere 3 days earlier.
https://reason.com/2021/09/09/california-is-set-to-outlaw-unannounced-condom-removal/?comments=true#comment-9091773
To be clear, it isn't that Mike was wrong, but that he gaslights us that he a) ever pushed their tripe and b) that he is the reasonable type of guy who is always skeptical of Rolling Stone. He isn't here to have conversations, because that requires building trust through multiple interactions. He is here to sow chaos by sounding reasonable and picking Kulture Warz fights. And if he posts a Hoax story today, it's fine. He'll ignore that he did so a week from now as he starts the same spiel all over again.
"For the benefit of the thread, if there is a disinformation agent here, it is Mike Laursen."
Don't leave Inquisitive Squirrel out.
I have seen no indication that IS is anything other than a person who genuinely sympathizes with the lefties. I have no problem with lefties who argue in good faith. Like them, I too over generalize and caricature from time to time. But if we are going to ever find the middle ground between lefty and right leaning libertarians, it will take honest discussion.
That is wholly different from Mike who actually isn't here to discuss. He is here to stir up chaos in the kulture warz, disappear and show back up the next day to do the same thing over again. Like a bad version of groundhog day where the main character is Ned Reyerson (BING!) instead of Phil.
You think there's good faith there?
Lol
Dude puts "inquisitive" into his handle and does nothing but mock anyone who doesn't 100% trust what the "experts" (aka mass media) say.
You can't have good faith discussion with someone who intends to mislead from the very beginning of every comment.
Really? That's a pretty "moronic" thing to say.
The Phucko Knows
The most recent reporting I have seen is that it is relatively mild and not really of concern. Sure, the stories also caveat with statements like, "but you should still be cautious as we don't fully know yet." But the reporting has been generally good when it comes to Omicron.
"People should go get their third dose now, and not wait,”
You mean all 3 doses at once? - 40% of the population.
heck, take 4. you don't need to wait until we fine tune it to actually work on the new variant, we've got petri dishes that prove it works.
The third shot may work better, but not as well as the fourth shot.
Five shots to flatten the curve.
how long until your car checks the freshness of the vaccine in your blood before it allows you to start it?
"You can't trust research from Pfizer because they are only motivated by the evil profit motive. That means their science is unreliable. This is also not a totally left-wing argument."
There's nothing wrong with a company shilling for their product. They will always do this. The problem are people who report companies shilling for their product as news, uncritically. The whole story here is that a company says their product is a good product. It isn't news, it's an advertisement, with the government reminding you to be a good citizen and use their product.
If there was even a tenuous amount of objectivity to be gleaned here, we could call this news. But it's instead reporting people make best-interest statements at face value. There's no "consult with your doctor before coming to a decision" anywhere to be had.
It's kind of funny how libertarians will turn on an industry when that industry turns into a government interest. If the only thing happening was that these businesses were trying to sell vaccines, I would not care. But there's a compelling government interest behind them and a lot of propagandizing involved, which makes this more akin to fascism or socialism than capitalism.
If the government is contemplating mandates forcing you to get vaccines, news stories about the fantastic vaccine are basically propoganda.
The problem are people who report companies shilling for their product as news, uncritically.
See: the MSM and pretty much anything coming out of the intel community.
And multiple commenters in this very thread.
Funny though that at least 2 of them are either wholly lying to themselves or know they need to dishonestly create a handle that helps them disseminate their talking points
Pfizer paid out 2,300,000,000 in 2009 for bribing doctors and suppressing adverse trial results.
How’s that for evil?
Not to mention the fact that they managed to get their COVID "vaccine" study results firewalled by the FDA for 55 years.
Outside of defense contractors, I cannot think of an industry given more direct government favor than Pharma. But Jeffy can't fathom that private companies aren't.
Libertarians for Big Pharma!
In his defense, Jeff isn’t a libertarian.
From the WHO:
Funny how a virus in 38 countries could cause damage to the global economy. It's my estimation that 100% of the damage to the economy has been created by the response to the virus, not the virus itself.
A virus in 38 countries that's caused 0 deaths*
I mean, if millions are dying then yes, taking those workers and consumers out of the economy does tend to have an effect. Same with the people who lived but have long term effects. Same with people who don't want to go out because they're trying to avoid a deadly virus.
But hey- why think for more than 10 seconds when a half a second works for you?
I mean, if millions are dying then yes, taking those workers and consumers out of the economy does tend to have an effect.
Assuming the millions dying are workers and/or are the most productive rather than just being a drag on or actively stifling the economy.
That's not to say everybody has died is useless, but I'm not the one advocating locking healthy people in cages.
Why aren’t you afraid like all the super smart people?
With what appears to be mild symptoms from Omicron infection, it's starting to look like the best defense is to be vaccinated and then contract the Omicron variant.
What would really be interesting is, with all the spike variants in Omicron, if getting it and then recovering would legitimately provide better immunity than the vaccines.
That's probably why the mRNA producers are shilling so hard, as they see their potential gravy train coming to an end by COVID evolving into a standard common cold like the Spanish Flu did.
Acquired immunity has ALWAYS been the gold standard. This is clear because you hear things like "Immunity + Vax is better than just immunity" and not "Vax is better than immunity".
I assume Omicron (and even Delta for that matter) is/are the beginning of the virus mutating to a less deadly and damaging form as evolutionary biology tends to suggest.
Yet, I don't do the "big pharma" conspiracy theories. Looks like natural immunity is solid, but it also looks like natural immunity coupled with the vaccines is even better. And if coupling in
the vaccines reduces symptoms, long term damage, and death by a measurable degree, sounds worth it to me.
Yet, I don't do the "big pharma" conspiracy theories.
The last near-two years should have been enough of a lesson that today's conspiracy theories are often tomorrow's confirmed events.
Yet, that's not true. Media covering up the obvious is not a conspiracy theory, that's the media trying to spin.
I'm talking about actual conspiracy theories that never seem to materialize, you know, like "Big Pharma" conspiracy theories.
Yet, that's not true. Media covering up the obvious is not a conspiracy theory, that's the media trying to spin.
Wait, what? It's literally the media conspiring to cover up the truth.
Jesus Christ, if you're going to make an argument downtalking crony capitalism and media bullshitting as a conspiracy theory,
I'm talking about actual conspiracy theories that never seem to materialize, you know, like "Big Pharma" conspiracy theories.
Big Pharma literally getting the FDA to cover up the results of their testing data for 55-75 years is an actual fact, not a conspiracy theory. As in, it actually happened.
if you're going to make an argument downtalking crony capitalism and media bullshitting as a conspiracy theory, then what's the fucking point?
Jesus. Never mind, you got it. It's all a conspiracy. There is no such thing as modern medicine. Everyone is lying to you to make a buck or control your life. The vaccines are just a way to control you. COVID doesn't actually exist. Yada, yada, yada.
"Don't ask questions, just consume product, then get excited for next product."
You can't even acknowledge that the FDA is actually trying keep vaccine testing data for Pfizer from being FOIA'd. That's not a "theory," it's actually happening. No wonder you need to resort to that cornfield's worth of strawmen.
They are asking to allow release of 500 pages a day. No to not release the information at all. At least get your facts right when claiming a conspiracy.
They are asking to allow release of 500 pages a day. No to not release the information at all. At least get your facts right when claiming a conspiracy.
"Just ignore the fact that they saying this will take 75 years, that doesn't mean it's a conspiracy."
It may be. But show proof of it. And when you claim it, at least get the facts right.
How does one show proof without the full documentation?
And that is on top of them having blanket immunity.
Wow.... U r literally brain dead. Have u lived in a cave over the last 40-yrs?
The Phucko Knows
Big pharma application literally admitted there weren't high enough statistics of children deaths from covid in their application to vaccinate children....
can I get the third one first?
Is it something specific about the third dose, or is it just because the first two wear out in a few months?
Even/Odd Vaccine Law
Dang. Shoulda scrolled down.
Same thought. If I can skip 1 and 2 and go straight to 3, can't I just skip to the next vaccine against a more deadly disease?
I mean, *I'm* not getting any shots, but the concept of the third one being the trick is a little laughable
And, again, double so under the notion of "The long term effects have been thoroughly vetted and you should give it to your kids... twice, no, thrice! Yeah, that's the ticket! Thrice!"
These companies and their government lackeys are literally claiming "Third time's the charm" now.
"but the concept of the third one being the trick is a little laughable"
Especially after two years of, "Two weeks...no four...no two months. Mask. Mask twice. Get the jab. Jab Twice."
How many times has the SCIENCE! (tm) boldly asserted they had the answers only to see them alter the deal once enough people had piled in to no effect?
And people call this trafficking in conspiracy theories? Pheh.
Stop thinking and drink your bleach.
this made me larf all afternoon.
Who cares what they say? Their credibility is gone.
I bet your youtube doc though has all the best info though.
He's got a point. They've flip flopped too many times to count. Makes it look like they're just guessing from a position of authority. I don't know about you, but I'd rather those with the power to use force to compel people to do shit did so with certainty, not guesswork.
Plus as I mentioned in the roundup, Pfizer has racked up billions of dollars in fines for falsely representing their products.
But shitlunches is a submissive, and wants us all to join him.
Is their vaccine one of those products?
Not yet, but the fact they got the FDA to block the paperwork on the vaccine study for 55 years would fit in that behavioral pattern.
Check that, it just got increased to 75 years.
Why the fuck would the FDA allow Pfizer to keep that kind of info proprietary when it comes to public health issues, especially in providing the basis for policies that have had devastating socio-economic effects for the country?
I don't know enough to comment either way.
Except this information is quite relevant when it comes to questions of public health policy, as it's literally being used to justify vaccine mandates. If the FDA and Pfizer are conspiring to keep this from being released under FOIA, that's a giant red flag.
quite the evergreen statement for you
My guess. They never read it all. Just read the talking points and then rubber stamped it. They never did their jobs and they don't want anyone to see the truth about how incompetent they are.
That's the problem with lying. U have to constantly cover it up with another.
The Phucko Knows
Just obey your masters, shitlunches. You'll make a good slave.
That the establishment voices have lost credibility does not imply that others are necessarily credible. Most people here are smart enough to realize that. Your idiotic straw men are idiotic.
Is that where you get your health info from? YouTube?
May I refer you to scholar.google.com? You can find all the peer reviewed publications on COVID there.
So it is as effective as being young and healthy?
It's as good as a placebo.
produced by people one month after they had been inoculated with a third booster dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.
And at 2 months?
And why is this research being done at the initial stages of omicron when the statistics for getting infected are already near zero?
A placebo is as likely to protect you from this joke disease.
We need to mandate placebos to end the supply chain crisis!
I love taking placebos. My favorite way to show I am doing something.
The COVID-19 virus variant rollercoaster should spur vaccine makers to develop and deploy universal coronavirus and influenza vaccines and, despite all evidence to the contrary, one can hope for speedy regulatory approval of them.
Really? Fuck that. Last time I caught the flu was probably 20 years ago, and I've never voluntarily had a flu shot (I got them when I was a kid, but not by choice.) This guy wants the two combined? Well fuck that, because that would be the equivalent of mandating the flu shot as well.
Wait until they roll out the rhinovirus vaccines and quarterly boosters....
If they come up with an effective vaccine for the common cold I just might try it.
Got one of those right now. I've forgotten how much it sucks to not be very sick.
If u get the flu shot..., and don't get sick from it. Then that's your body telling u that u didn't need it in the first place. As a vaccine is but LAST YEARS flu virus. If your amune system is faulty u get the flu..., from the vaccine u took. And most likely STILL get the flu of the coming year.
The Phucko Knows
The common cold is likely 1000s of different viruses and bacteria, many of which haven't even been isolated or cateragorized. They literally mutate too fast. Everyone gets their own custom variant. Covid 19 will just be a part of this soup of pathogens we encounter every day. Trying to use vaccines for anything except the most dangerous flavors is a loosers game.
"If they come up with an effective vaccine for the common cold I just might try it."
Who said it had to be effective? All it needs to be is mandated.
Go back and find the articles this guy wrote where he told us the jabs were 100 percent effective against hospitalization and death. Come on, Bailey, are you taking pharma money or just gullible?
He knows that if expressed skepticism about a particular vaccine or mandates for that matter, the left would call him an anti-vaxxer.
“No cocktail parties for you, Alex Jones!”
The one thing everybody agrees on is that this variant is already super mild, so what protection are we actually talking about?
Protecting the authoritarian control, nothing more now.
Something had to replace TWOT.
so all this means is that the closer a person is to an antibody producing event, the greater the protection. I would still take my natural immunity from previous infection 11 months ago, over the immunity from the vaccine I got last April, and I don't see any need for a booster.
You too can be protected against the sniffles for a few months, with an experimental vaccine whose symptoms are worse than the disease caused by the Omicron variant.
What an age of wonders we live in!
A Message to Inquisitive Squirrel:
You asked above how we get out of this mess arguing about the science. It is very simple:
Stop picking a fight with the people who disagree with the science. And stop trying to promote the Science as some sort of authority.
We just went through 2020 led by Scientists whose guidance locked us down for weeks, then months, then almost a year. They insisted that the science was clear, even as their models woefully failed. They implored us to eschew masks, only to demand we wear masks for all time. They insisted Lockdowns were more important than small business owners' lives, but not as important as mass demonstrations in the streets. One chief scientist even ADMITTED to lying to us about Mask efficacy. And then that same "Scientist" is heavily suspected of lying about the origins of the virus and even being involved in this. Over a period of a two weeks, the "science" on the CDC website went from "Masking is not helpful in most cases"- an uncontroversial statement for nearly 100 years- to "Masking will stop the spread".
Squirrel, this isn't a question of conspiracy theories. The above items actually happened. Do you deny that? It is absolutely clear that the people claiming to be "following the science" are either fundamentally wrong in their guidance (c.f. 2 weeks to flatten the curve) or mixing personal politics with the science (c.f. Racism is a public health issue). But whether you trust the motives of these scientists or not, it is clear that the vast, vast majority of decisions made at the time based on the "best science" were generally bad for the country.
So why are we still arguing about the science? If there is one thing that 2020 should have taught everyone, its that the Science shouldn't fucking matter when we decide public policy.
We all agree, on this libertarian site, that the proper libertarian response to mandated lockdowns and mandated masking and mandated medical procedures like vaccines is for them to be RESISTED. Who cares what the science is? You could show me incontrovertible proof that forcing everyone onto Nature's Miracle, while scooping out their frontal brain lobe would end crime and usher in real peace. If you are a libertarian, you say, "I don't care about the science. It is wrong to force individuals to undergo a medical procedure to benefit society."
But for some reason, we continue to argue about the science, as if that has anything to do with whether or not forced vaccinations are evil. Because for some reason, it is more important to resist trumpers being wrong about science than it is to resist government tyranny.
It isn't that these people decline to resist government tyranny, though that is bad. It is that they spend every waking day trying to shame the people who resist government tyranny. They WANT the post-covid world that Lucy the Scientist says they can get. So while they don't technically, actually support the forced vaccinations, the greater threat in their minds are the people who refuse to vaccinations. And that, frankly, is why this fight continues.
You said it way more eloquently then I would have.
++
"Preliminary actuarial research by Pfizer/BioNTech finds that a third booster shot of its COVID-19 vaccine successfully boosts profits"
TFTY
Why should I get a booster? I'd be better off being naturally infected by the naturally attenuated (in terms of virulence) ο strain, from which I'll get more robust immunity than from the booster.
They've tried really really really hard to convince people this isn't an option.
But think of the poor, poor children of the Pfizer shareholders!
Who will think of the children!
How very convenient for Pfizer that the booster they’re pushing on every adult in the country happens to magically be just the right answer to this new unstudied variant….
Don't worry, after most people have received their booster shots, it will turn it it wasn't the right answer after all, but their new, omicron-specific booster is!
And if you get an autoimmune disease or cardiomyopathy after half a dozen shots, Pfizer has drugs for you too!
I wonder how the vaccines with and without boosters compare to people with natural immunity?
In the back of my brain, I can help feeling like we are being scammed with a Bait and Switch campaign.
It seems that the drive for vaccine compliance has more to do with eliminating the control group than with public safety.
To get natural immunity, you need to get the disease, and for the original COVID variants and people older than 50, the disease was more risky than the vaccine. That’s why it made sense for people over 50 without prior COVID infection to get vaccinated.
The current drive to get everyone vaccinated and boosted, on the other hand, is absurd.
Car wax improves your gas mileage by 50%, report autosdetailing company. I wonder if Pfizer has any financial interest in pushing boosters for what is turning out to be the mildest form of COVID to date. You know what else works? Aspirin, Vitamin D, and losing weight. These, however, are not experimental and have no negative side effects.
Of course they have negative side effects: they are quite negative for doctors, hospitals, and Pharma companies. Sailboats and mansions are expensive you know.
"Booster Shots Appear To Offer Protection Against Omicron COVID-19 Variant"
Well...
"New East Bay omicron outbreak details: Fully vaccinated, boosted Kaiser staff got COVID after out-of-state wedding"
[...]
"Eleven of the 12 confirmed COVID-19 cases tied to an omicron outbreak in the East Bay last week are among fully vaccinated and boosted staff members at Kaiser Permanente’s Oakland Medical Center, according to a spokesperson for the hospital..."
https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/Omicron-outbreak-from-out-of-state-wedding-tied-16685845.php
The more I see about the vaccine the more I question it.
You can get a 'booster' of a shot type you haven't received? That's not how boosters work. You can't 'boost' something you have with a different thing.
'Vaccinated' people need to be protected from unvaccinated people? huh? That's not how vaccination works.
Vaccinated people infect unvaccinated people? What?
There is so much wrong with this.
And all over a disease that is quickly evolving into a seasonal cold.
Right. So the claim is non-falsifiable.
If the reporting states that the vaccines are "safe and effective" then it's proof that they are pushing a narrative.
If the reporting states that there are problems with the vaccines, or that the vaccines don't work as well as hoped, then it's proof that they are subtly camouflaging the REAL narrative they want to push, that the vaccines are "safe and effective".
Either way, the claim is correct! Brilliant!
You forgot "We never said it was a vaccine. It was always just a therapy."
Are they wrong? If you think they are wrong, then show your work.
"May cause death, which is normal."
The Experts
Oh look at this little snowflake here.
But what about drinking bleach? I'm not making a move til Ron reports on the bleach-drinking test results.
He's the same dumbass that thinks he can fly the plane better than the pilot or throw the ball better than the pro QB.
Are you STILL trying to bait people to prove negatives?
Considering we don't even know the long-term side effects of Covid generally, let alone vaccinated vs unvaccinated, I can't say they are wrong, but they have know way of knowing what they say is right, they are just saying it to say something
How about u PROVE that the pharma pigs r right in what they preach. How about u PROVE that something called Covid-19 even EXIST in nature. As u can't patent ANYTHING that occurs naturally in nature. Yet the CDC and other "helpful" organizations have hundreds of patients on Corona viruses. 40-yrs ago big pharmaceutical could not advertise on TV, magazines or newspapers. Today..., without big pharmaceutical spending billions on advertising... NONE of these institutions would even exist. Hummmm... Fauci's 40-yr bureaucratic carreer and big pharmaceutical certainly seem to be holding hands down this ridiculous road of doom.
The Phucko Knows
Show your research dumbass.
I'm sure you have scads with such big claims.
Yes yes we know. The CDC, the FDA, the NIH, doctors, vaccine trial participants, Fauci, Pelosi, Schumer, all Democrats, and Trump (he started Operation Warp Speed, after all), as well as all of those Republicans who are also pushing the vaccine, are all in on a giant conspiracy to inject millions of people with a "vaccine" that THEY KNEW was poisonous and harmful, for the purpose of some nefarious plot. What is the plot? What is the vaccine's "real purpose", huh? Is it the microchips? I bet it's the microchips, isn't it?
They literally took credit for spring.
Believe it or not, I don't read the Washington Post on a daily basis.
But this article is reporting on the Governor of New York overreacting to the omicron variant. Should they not do that?
Maybe the Washington Post should not report on what the Governor of New York is doing. Would that be the correct call?
Maybe the Washington Post should editorialize in their coverage of the Governor's overreaction - "she ordered a lockdown but it's totally not justified, she is going too far!" Would that be the correct call - a reporter editorializing in the news coverage?
This is what the article said about the omicron variant itself:
The nation’s top infectious-disease experts, including Anthony S. Fauci, urged caution even as they acknowledged that there much was unknown about omicron, which the World Health Organization designated a variant of concern on Friday.
That is broadly consistent with what I have seen being reported in the media about omicron - there's a lot we don't know about it and we should be cautious. I don't see this article hyperventilating and saying that it's THE WORST EVAH or anything.
This article doesn't say what you think it says.
Conservatives (who pretty much suck at everything) don't lack confidence in their ideas.
See "Intelligent Design" - which is just warmed over Creationism for example.
Okay, so how long should "long term" be, for your satisfaction, to assess the vaccine and any possible effects? 1 year? 5 years? 10 years?
And by the way:
There is no basis from which to conclude that "long-term health problems are extremely unlikely"
Yes there is a basis. See: every other vaccine ever developed. Serious long-term effects, if any, emerged after a few months, it didn't take years and years. That's the basis.
So the media is telling us the vaccines have a great personality?
Oddly it is the left that puts intelligent design into practice with their desire for centralized government at the federal level.
You even suck at building strawmen.
Only if Ron goes first....
You read the daily beast on a regular basis.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/omicron-variant-puttings-huge-numbers-of-kids-under-5-years-old-in-hospital-in-south-africa
What is the vaccine's "real purpose"...?
Compliance. Universal compliance.
The answer is always a lazy, "it's about big pharma and money" or the more nebulous "to control the masses by people I can't identify."
Lysenkoism didn't exist in your history education? What about parallax and the christian church?
U poor ignorant little fool. How about u pay some attention to the WORDS in the past that these folks regurgitated out of there mouths going back to 2005. The Great Reset.... IS NOT A CONSPIRACY!! Who says? THEY SAY!! This is not the first reset of the world..., and will not be the last. Stop being a counted on pawn.
The Phucko Knows
Here we go
Money talks
Here comes the money
Money money
Money money
Money money
Money money
Money
Dolla dolla
Dolla dolla
Ching ching
Bling Bling
At the check out
If you ain't talkin' money
Then your talkin' don't matter
Ching ching
Bling Bling
Packin' Pocket
You make the dolla, dolla
Can't a damn soul stop it
But you're the one making the assertion that you need a long term study. So how long do you need to see the vaccines not causing problems?
The thing is that by 'improve' for the virus, that means it gets LESS deadly but more infectious. That's exactly what we want.
The good news is that it looks more and more likely that this virus is becoming less lethal over time. Bur that almost certainly has nothing at all to do with these bullshit mRna fake "vaccines" that don't do squat. The same exact thing happened with the original flu virus a hundred years ago, and that one far more lethal on a percentage/per capital basis than this one. It's likely just in the nature of these kinds of viruses (killing the host is bad, etc.)
No, Jeff is asserting there are no long term effects then declaring that everyone else has to prove him wrong.
He's not the one asserting that everyone keep getting jabbed every few months. I'm yet to hear from someone that is in any way skeptical of taking Big Pharma's word for it demand that everyone get vaccinated.
The media is trying to convince us that the vaccines give great head.
That's pretty much what they r doing. While also putting lipstick and the latest fashion over what is but an ugly ass pig.
The Phucko Knows
No, Jeff is explaining that we have almost a year of data that shows no long term effects of consequence. Yet, that amount of time is not enough for people here. So Jeff is asking what is an appropriate "long-term" timeframe, especially in light of the fact that all side effects of all vaccines in history occurred in very short periods of time. Thus, empirically indicating that for vaccine side effects "long-term" tends to be a matter of months, not years.
I am not saying that there are NO long-term effects. Indeed, several have been identified: anaphylaxis for those who are allergic, thrombosis for the J&J vaccine, myocarditis/pericarditis, and Guilles-Barre syndrome. But these are already known. GG and others keep expecting that there will be more long-term effects that will appear any day now and that only further research will uncover them. How long do you want to wait until these as-yet-undiscovered long-term effects are finally discovered? That is my question.
all vaccines in history
But the mRNA drugs are not what has historically been called a "vaccine". They are a completely new and untried technology. As such, extraordinary caution is warranted.
Actually, mRNA technology for the vaccines has been around for longer than a decade. It's honestly very interesting and the reason they were able to develop the vaccines so quickly. I recommend reading about it. Quite cool.
It's honestly very interesting and the reason they were able to develop the vaccines so quickly.
"We can develop a vaccine for the first COVID strain in 48 hours, but subsequent ones are going to take several months."
mRNA technology for the vaccines has been around for longer than a decade.
But it was never marketed to humans before 2020. How long they've been screwing around with it in the lab is irrelevant to judging its safety and effectiveness in the real world.
Actually, it's not irrelevant at all. The fact you think so is concerning.
MRNA vaccines being developed is not the same as a global test on outcomes. Likewise we are doing this global test where the overwhelming percent of the population doesn't need protection. How can you claim it is justified?
The age bias in covid deaths are extreme. There is no reason to do broad tests of this vaccine on all children. None. The risk outweighs the benefit especially for that cohort.
Ah, it always come back to "Big Pharma." I'm tired of conspiracy theories. Go look at the medical data that exists on the vaccines. It's mostly all public and has been scoured by thousands of people. Are all those people part of the "Big Pharma" conspiracy?
At the end of the day, after a year and over 4 billion people receiving some form of vaccination, there is no indication of long term or meaningful side effects.
The fair question Jeff is getting to is: Exactly what kind of data and information about the vaccines and their safety and effectiveness do you need to see?
Ah, it always come back to "Big Pharma." I'm tired of conspiracy theories. Go look at the medical data that exists on the vaccines.
You mean the stuff that the FDA just extended the FOIA timeline on from 55 to 75 years?
Yup, it's always a conspiracy theory. Can't argue with someone who will claim conspiracy, then when the conspiracy is shown to be wrong, they claim a conspiracy to cover for the other conspiracy.
It's like arguing against someone whoe keeps claiming, "because god said."
It doesn't need to be a conspiracy. Incentives and herd mentality can explain it fine.
It may well be that the vaccines are fine and safe overall. But I don't trust the traditional authorities on these matters anymore. Back off on any mandates and honestly and openly discuss the side effects and adverse events that are well known and maybe I'll start trusting them again a little bit. In several years.
You really are bad at this, aren't you?
Yup, it's always a conspiracy theory.
Crony capitalism is hardly a conspiracy theory.
Except you won't believe them when they come out because they will all be generated by Big Pharma, and government, and some other conspiracy theory organization.
there is no indication of long term or meaningful side effects.
That is false. Look at the VAERS reports.
Yes, VAERS. The unverified storage tank for all possible claims against the vaccines.
It's funny, because if the makers of the vaccines relied upon as sketchy of data as VAERS contains to justify the vaccines, people like you would be through the roof apoplectic about it.
Except you won't believe them when they come out because they will all be generated by Big Pharma, and government, and some other conspiracy theory organization.
Hey moron, THEY HAVEN'T RELEASED THE DATA; THEY'RE TRYING TO KEEP IT FROM BEING REVEALED IN A FOIA FOR 55-75 YEARS.
Yeah, there's nothing untoward about a government regulatory agency trying to prevent transparency on vaccine testing data by putting it behind a 55-75 year firewall. Don't ask questions; just consume product, then get excited for next product.
It's like you think saying the same thing over and over again. And actually, they are asking to be able to release 500 pages a day. That's why it is taking so long. Sure, this sounds fishy and people are looking into it and people should look into it.
But that doesn't negate all other information that we know and it shows that your framing of this particular fact is hyperbolic.
And actually, they are asking to be able to release 500 pages a day. That's why it is taking so long.
So what's stopping them from releasing the whole thing?
But that doesn't negate all other information that we know and it shows that your framing of this particular fact is hyperbolic.
"A 75-year period to release FOIA'd information is perfectly normal."
Four people having to go through and release 329,000 pages of information from 30 different institutions and people.
I get it, it's absurd. And it won't hold up in court. But it ain't the smoking gun you want it to be.
Four people having to go through and release 329,000 pages of information from 30 different institutions and people.
I get it, it's absurd. And it won't hold up in court. But it ain't the smoking gun you want it to be.
The mere fact that it was even proposed was what set off alarm bells. It's the equivalent of school boards charging parents tens of thousands of dollars to FOIA board records.
The goal isn't to be transparent. The goal is to get the requestor to go away out of frustration.
I get the reason for the alarm bells, and it rightly set them off. And I guarantee people and courts will be following up with it. But having a ton of familiarity with FOIAs, I can tell you, government laziness and lack of interest plays a huge role in it as well.
So I hope people keep pressing them for the info, and I hope it comes out much faster, as I assume a court fill force them to.
But right now, that fact alone does not remotely take away from the mountains of other information that we have. Gotta work with the entirety of what we know, and not just on pieces and parts.
The only emergency we have is people waking up and telling thier governments to fuck off.
I'm tired of conspiracy theories. Go look at the medical data that exists on the vaccines.
The data that says there is no statistical data to support their effectiveness in kids? That was from Pfizer own application for vaccines for kids.
Fair enough, are we just limiting to kids? If so, I agree with you and don't believe the science shows that kids under 11 need to be vaccinated.
And government and pharma are pushing vaccines to 5 year olds as strongly as every other age cohort. Moderna just started a study in infants. It i isn't a conspiracy at this point.
You're arguments are starting to become similar to someone claiming "god said." There is no response to it.
I mean, you keep claiming that all information and data that you don't like is derived from conspiracy sources bent on money and evil and therefore, can't be trusted. With that positioning, you simply waive off any counter argument or position.
They're not fictitious. They are also not caricatures of evil.
More of this paranoid black/white thinking:
"Bureaucrats aren't saints, therefore they are pure evil."
Not sure if this is drunk or sober Sarc, but about once every two weeks, he sanely weaves through a thread with good thought. Unfortunately, his trolling is worse than ever, as in not good and not funny.
No, that is one of the purposes of the mandate. Not the vaccine itself.
Yes, it does stop there. I am not advocating for mandates. See, this is your problem, you conflate being for vaccines as also being for mandates. The two are separate issues. Ease up on the black and white thinking.
Nope, he won't shut the fuck up about it.
Pretty pathetic begging for approval.
The problem is that you operate in a world of black and white. You explain correctly that people lie, cheat, steal. That the government has lied to the public numerous times. That private companies will lie for profit. That's all true.
However, the intelligent assessor of information knows how to cut through all of that with knowledge that that stuff exists. The intelligent assessor of information understands bias and understands nuance. The intelligent assessor doesn't simply claim that Fauci lied, therefore all information on the vaccines is wrong.
Instead, look at as much information as you can. Heck, use your own eyes. How many people do you know that got vaccinated and are just fine. Then look at the scores of information publish on the vaccines, see that there is some negative to taking vaccines, see that there is a lot of positive to taking vaccines. See that over 4 billion people have been vaccinated to some degree and there is not a shred of meaningful issue resulting from that.
Stop with the black and white claims of "the government lied this one time, so no matter what they say, it must be a lie." That's literally a standard that none of us would pass.
Instead, truly critically look at the information and apply subtly and nuance to it.
In the end, you'll see that the vaccines have some side effects, but they are minimal. You'll see vaccines are very effective at preventing serious illness and death. You'll see that they are not super at preventing transmission, but that they do help to stunt transmission. You'll see that COVID isn't Ebola, but it is most definitely serious enough to take precautions. And you'll see that believing in the vaccine doesn't immediately mean people believe in mandates.
You ever notice that your whole argument tactic is to deflect without actually addressing the substance of people's statements. And when pushed to address the substance, you just resort to the tired "it's all a conspiracy and I'm the only one smart enough to see it" position?
But it's not. My tactic is to provide data, which I have. Your tactic is to call all that data unreliable because you don't trust any sources of data.
Thus, I then explain that you are driven by conspiracy theories because you won't trust any data as a result of your belief in conspiracy theories.
Ah, now I'm a troll. You can't make this stuff up, folks.
And when pushed to address the substance, you just resort to the tired "it's all a conspiracy and I'm the only one smart enough to see it" position?
Watching a federal regulator literally try to keep vaccine testing data for a pharmaceutical company from being FOIA'd for 75 years doesn't require the heads of these organizations to issue a joint statement saying "Yes, we're colluding to hide this information because our intentions are bad" in order to point out that such action is both crony capitalism and shady as hell.
You got it. Keep a tight hold on that kernel of truth in order to ignore everything else.
You got it. Keep a tight hold on that kernel of truth in order to ignore everything else.
"A federal regulatory agency and a pharmaceutical company trying to keep vaccine testing data hidden is just a conspiracy theory."
Uh huh.
IS, no offense, but you're also doing a lot of the same tactics you are accusing others of in this thread.
JesseAZ,
Fair enough, I take responsibility for that. Probably getting overly irritated and have gotten a little snippy.
"Fair enough, I take responsibility for that. Probably getting overly irritated and have gotten a little snippy."
No, you're just an absolute piece of worthless shit with a subpar mind, but you have an inflated view of yourself and are thus threatened by anyone who doesn't trust the "experts" as faithfully as yourself.
Your life has no value.
No, I just don't take historical kernels of truth to broadly paint and make decisions in life. I actually look into facts.
Okay, then what were you implying by this statement: "But, it doesn't stop there, does it?"
Again, your god said. It's all a conspiracy and you can't trust anyone. Well...anyone who says things you don't agree with, that is.
(For buttgag)
I can't believe I have to ask as it was obvious, but WHAT doesn't stop there?
Oh, you're discussing something off topic. I didn't realize you wanted to change the subject. Next time, indicate that you are changing the subject and then explain what that subject is.
What mandates? I wasn't talking about mandates. This article isn't talking about mandates. What the hell is wrong with you?
Good excuse. LOL!
Whose comments? What are you talking about? My god. Are you really this incapable of explaining things?
So you are incapable of explaining. At least we cleared that up.
See Overton window. Once you normalize X, it becomes easier to justify Y.
right
Yes. Look up "optimal virulence".
Ah, I see we are now to the part where you claim COVID is just the flu. Sad.
Do you really lack this much awareness?
Or you're paying more attention to what the trolls say about me instead of what I actually write.
Wait, are you now against enforcing laws against crime. Or do you actually think crime doesn't exist?
Creating new "crimes" is about increasing power.
Yeah, that's the official lie.
To be fair, the overwhelming majority of people that have had it either didn’t know or assumed it was just a light case of flu and didn’t get tested. (30m confirmed vs like 150m total).
I never claimed it was the plague. I actually explained in a comment that you responded to that it wasn't like Ebola. You are just amazing at hyperbole and gaslighting.
I guess the question comes down to whether you know you are gaslighting, or if you have already gaslighted yourself before you say it.
Covid is closer to the bad flus we have had in the past than it is an existential threat used to justify what has happened the last 2 years.
I'm not remotely now or ever arguing that mandates (mask or vaccine) or lockdowns were appropriate responses, because they weren't. Only position that I am taking is that vaccines at this point appear to be appropriately safe and quite effective at fighting COVID.
Children have virtually no risk of death from covid. Only in extreme situations. The vaccine on the other hand poses a risk of myocarditis in the young which is a bad effect long term for children. More kids will get heart inflammation from vaccines than will die of covid.
That is one example of cost analysis that is against blanket claims of vaccines are great.
GG: And I never claimed COVID is just the flu
GG two comments later: Covid is closer to the bad flus we have had in the past
Yeah.
Also, ease up on the straw man arguments about my position. You really have a problem with hyperbole and gaslighting.
My bad on that one.
Covid is the flu, you worthless pussy
No, it's worse than the flu. Do you suffer from a head injury?
There are two flu pandemics worse when you normalize for population. And that is with a died of metric not died with.
"I'm serious..."
That's a lie.
It's not a reflex. It is literally a response to you. Not everyone else. I don't think people who are skeptical of vaccines conspiracy theorists, I think you are, as you have proved that to me.
And painting my support of vaccines as "enthusiastic" is again hyperbole and just part of your black and white view of the world. Heck you even commented on one of my posts where I explained the good and bad of vaccines.
Your penchant for the absurd is pretty astonishing.
The sad thing is, I think you actually think that proved your point.
One would think a libertarian would have a sense of curiousity as to why a government regulatory agency and a pharmaceutical megacorps are trying to keep testing data on these vaccines hidden for 3/4 of a century, when profits for the latter just happen to be going through the roof thanks to a high-demand environment for their product that requires several uses to remain effective.
But apparently, "don't ask questions, just consoooooooooome product" is the order of the day.
I would imagine most people think a minimum of 5 years when discussing what long-term side effects might be.
And I would point out that as novel as Covid was/is, using mRNA in the way we are (2 or 3 booster shots. In 6-8 months time) is even more novel and there is no way to accurately make a claim on what the potential harm may or may not be.
Read my comment and the article. It has nothing to do with what you discuss. That's the problem.
The first comment in this thread. What is wrong with you?
You've resorted to copying and pasting me? I didn't realize I was going to break you like that. Sorry.
Sure there is. mRNA technology is well known at this point, and the compounds of the vaccine are all common to other vaccines. Moreover, the vaccine doesn't last in the body for very long at all. It's goal is to train your body to fight the disease, not hang out and do it itself.
As such, like all other vaccines that are out of the body in short order, the impacts are short duration events. Thus, "long-term" for vaccines is measured in months not years.
Yet, I don't have unflinching faith in the vaccines. I've actually said that in comments you have responded to.
I am starting to get it. With as much lying and gaslighting as you do, I see why you think everyone is lying to you. We can only judge the world through our own eyes.
As such, like all other vaccines that are out of the body in short order, the impacts are short duration events. Thus, "long-term" for vaccines is measured in months not years.
Uh, the smallpox vaccine has a ten-year period before a booster is recommended, and a one-time booster is recommended for polio for adults after the four-course vaccine through age 4.
So no, it's not like "all other vaccines."
I'm just a ration libertarian. I ask questions, but I also except answers as well. You are kind of the cliched libertarian. You continually ask questions and never accept answers, even in the face of overwhelming answers.
Yes, I'd love to know why they are not releasing the info. And I intend to keep asking that question and looking into it. That doesn't mean that I don't trust the answers that we have at this point.
Problem is, you latch on to a kernel of truth to justify ignoring all other truths you don't want to hear. That's not being a good libertarian. That's just being a contrarian. Too often libertarians think contrariness is the goal of being a libertarian.
That doesn't mean that I don't trust the answers that we have at this point.
I suppose "we have the data but can't show it to you for 75 years" is technically an answer, but it's a stupid one to accept.
Problem is, you latch on to a kernel of truth to justify ignoring all other truths you don't want to hear.
All I did was point out that the FDA and Pfizer are trying to keep the latter's testing data from being FOIA'd for 3/4 of a century, and you sperged out and called that a "conspiracy theory." I'm clearly not the one trying to protect a narrative here.
Apologies for jumping too fast at you for the conspiracy theory claim. That was more in response to GG than you.
But the point I was wanting to make is that it is absurd how long it is taking, but there are valid reasons that they have put forward for it, and that one fact does not outweigh all masses of other information that we have out there.
Actually, that is literally how science works. It is entertaining though when you claim data and information isn't science. Shows your skill level.
Actually, that is literally how science works
Actually, you literally claimed that "long-term" for vaccines is measured in months, not years, when we have vaccinations that literally last for years.
Um, do you know why vaccines last for years? Hint, it's not because the vaccine itself stays in your body.
Um, do you know why vaccines last for years? Hint, it's not because the vaccine itself stays in your body.
Um, is that why the mRNA vaccines crap out after 6-8 months?
It means that the mRNA vaccines don't seem to trigger lasting immunity like other vaccines do. At least for a coronavirus.
That's what vaccines do, teach your body to fight the disease, they don't stay in your body for that long.
Who here is asking to take instances in the past and apply it to all decisions? You're using many of the same argumentative fallacies here you are accusing others of. What was broadly painted? The discussion is on 1 subject.
You're being completely dishonest.
You're kidding, right? You just did that. Yes, the discussion is on one subject, and very few are actually engaging on that, including you.
People need to provide something more than things bad happened in the past, therefore what is happening now is the same. That was literally your position and many others' position here.
I've seen it a lot. Take a kernel of truth, then apply that throughout. GG is great at it. Take instances from the past and say I don't trust anything now because of what happened back then. Just like you did.
Instead, pull up information as to the here and now to use as evidence.
Are you going to claim government doesn't distort science ever?
That they didn't start with CFR being high until pointed put half of infected are asymptomatic?
That they switched to IFR until it dropped to nrar flu IFR?
That they continue to count deaths as died with and not died of? Despite Asian countries only linking covid deaths with respiratory deaths? That multiple audits gave shown a near 30% reduction in covid deaths?
That they then transitioned to covid beds in hospitals until it was pointed out that emergency rooms often run at 80%? That then they switched to hospital beds with covid instead of sue to covid?
That now they literally use number of positive infections instead of death rates?
How the fuck can you say that the government is not hyping the numbers to force mandates, lockdowns, and now forced quarantine camps in Australia even of tested negative??
Wake the fuck up. These same agencies put a ton of effort into dismissing alternatives as well.
Oh god, back to the hyperbole and hysterical arguments. The cliched "wake up" catchphrase.
One of the most interesting things about COVID and our society is that COVID is a nuanced disease existing in a society that has no ability to handle nuance and complexity.
It always keeps boiling back down to broad, extreme positioning.
Yes, the government lies. And you know what, there are sources that discuss that the government lies. The reason you know government lies is because of the breadth of information that is available to us. You know who also lies, reporters, business owners, Reason commenters, police officers, doctors, everyone.
Cut through the lies by analyzing the information from all sources.
And please, stop with the straw man arguments.
Lol. What fuckogn hyperbole? Which action i listed did not take place??
To be fair, this is an oversimplification of economics.
There are very few products that get 100% penetration in a free market. Even when you get near monopolies like Windows in the 90s, there is still some portion of the market that does not want it. This is why demand curves exist, and why they rarely go to 100%
The problem isn't (necessarily) that the product doesn't work. The problem is that everyone thinks there is a one size fits all solution here.
60% of the US population is vaccinated. Which seems so horrible. But 25% of the population is under 18. Those kids have ZERO reason to vaccinate. And another 37% of the population is 18 - 44. If you just take the people who are under 35- who are overwhelmingly not at risk from Covid- you basically get a remaining population of about 60%.
Even if the product works very well, close to 40%+ of our population faces little to no risk from COVID. They need that product as much as they need a sharp poke in the arm...Which is all it is to them, at any price.
Even if the product works very well, close to 40%+ of our population faces little to no risk from COVID.
---------
Now add in the recovered, and you see why mandates are so important to the 'leaders'. That's a lot of jabs left on the table.
How about u SHOW your research? Whoops... I'm sorry.... U don't DO research. You just wait for a hand shoved up your ass... Then just repeat your "knowledge" like the good parrot u r.
The Phucko Knows