Covid-19 mRNA Vaccines Win Nobel Prize for Medicine 2023

[Bkk Brian]

19 minutes ago, impulse said:

They were prepared with everything but real tests on real people, because that would have been considered unethical.   Covid was a perfect reason to unleash the experiment.

 

Bottom line, we don't know what the long term effects will be simply because it hasn't been a long term.

Realizing that I'm speaking from a database of one, I'd give just about anything to go back and undo my 2nd Pfizer and get my health back.

 

What B.S. Read the link in the post your replying to rather than making those claims.

[xylophone]

18 minutes ago, impulse said:

They were prepared with everything but real tests on real people, because that would have been considered unethical.   Covid was a perfect reason to unleash the experiment.

 

Bottom line, we don't know what the long term effects will be simply because it hasn't been a long term.

Realizing that I'm speaking from a database of one, I'd give just about anything to go back and undo my 2nd Pfizer and get my health back.

 

I hope you do get your health back from whatever caused it. However the virus itself does cause some health problems and a mild form of it can still be caught despite the vaccine, but this is very rare.

 

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are strongly recommended as safe and effective at preventing serious illness or death from COVID-19.

 

From December 2020 to December 2021, about 470 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been given in the U.S.

 

Roughly 12 months of data, including data from tens of thousands of participants in clinical trials, show that the vaccines are safe and effective at preventing serious disease or death due to COVID-19.

 

mRNA technology used in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines has been in development for over 15 years.

[impulse]

24 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

What B.S. Read the link in the post your replying to rather than making those claims.

So, which of my claims are you disagreeing with?  That the mRNA vaccines weren't put through long term human trials before they were released to the public, or that my health stinks since I got my 2nd Pfizer?

 

I specifically remember conversations from the period where the talking heads said that testing such technology on humans would have been unethical unless they identified a benefit to offset any (yet unquantified) risk.   

 

BTW, when you're talking about dinking about with RNA or DNA, "long term" means a lot longer than a few months.

 

I have no doubt that vaccines saved many lives, and were very appropriate for some segments of the population.  I've never been anti-vax.  Just anti-mandate, and very much in favor of full disclosure, allowing informed decisions. 

 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, impulse said:

So, which of my claims are you disagreeing with?  That the mRNA vaccines weren't put through long term human trials before they were released to the public, or that my health stinks since I got my 2nd Pfizer?

 

I specifically remember conversations from the period where the talking heads said that testing such technology on humans would have been unethical unless they identified a benefit to offset any (yet unquantified) risk.   

 

BTW, when you're talking about dinking about with RNA or DNA, "long term" means a lot longer than a few months.

 

I have no doubt that vaccines saved many lives, and were very appropriate for some segments of the population.  I've never been anti-vax.  Just anti-mandate, and very much in favor of full disclosure, allowing informed decisions. 

 

The claims below are completely false and had you read the link rather than edit it out you would already know that

 

57 minutes ago, impulse said:

They were prepared with everything but real tests on real people, because that would have been considered unethical.   Covid was a perfect reason to unleash the experiment.

There was no experiment. 30,000 People went through full clinical trials with Moderna and around 43,000 with Pfizer before they were submitted for emergency approval in the US. More trials carried out in other countries on thousands of people to. They are now all fully FDA approved.

 

[rattlesnake]

3 hours ago, xylophone said:

Well, the mRNA aspect of the vaccine has been worked on and studied since the 1960s, but there was a problem in finding a way to get it delivered into the cells, however this was overcome when a method was found in the 1970s when nanotechnology advances were made.

 

More tests were carried out in the 1990s so when Covid hit, scientists and the medical profession were prepared.

 

Huge increases in funding for this research was spurred by the Covid 19 pandemic and allowed a huge increase in research into the area.

 

So it's hardly an exploratory drug (the research into it was being carried out over 60 years ago) and the same could be said for many other drugs and vaccines in use today (did the medical establishment know the potential long-term effects of the polio vaccine, for example, and the same goes for many others) so scaremongering is high on the list of the anti-brigade.

 

I put my trust in the medical profession rather than social media websites and the rubbish that gets posted on them.

 

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/the-long-history-of-mrna-vaccines 

Albert Bourla, Pfizer CEO, does not share that view:

 

“mRNA was a technology, but we had less experience, only two years working on this, and actually, mRNA was a technology that never delivered a single product until that day, not vaccine, not any other medicine. So it was very counterintuitive, and I was surprised when they suggested to me that this is the way to go, and I questioned it. And I asked them to justify how can you say something like that, but they came, and they were very, very convinced that this is the right way to go.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/washington-post-live/2022/03/10/transcript-wp-subscriber-exclusive-albert-bourla-author-moonshot-inside-pfizers-nine-month-race-make-impossible-possible/

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Nobel prize awarded for 'groundbreaking findings' that made mRNA vaccines possible

...

“Through their fundamental discoveries of the importance of base modifications in mRNA, this year's Nobel laureates critically contributed to this transformative development during one of the biggest health crises of our time,” according to the release.

 

Alongside the other vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, more than 13 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered around the world, saving the lives of millions and preventing severe disease in many more, as well as allowing society to return to relatively normal conditions, according to the release."

 

https://www.healio.com/news/primary-care/20231002/nobel-prize-awarded-for-groundbreaking-findings-that-made-mrna-vaccines-possible

 

[metisdead]

Some posts and replies contravening our Community Standards have been removed.

[owl sees all]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

I have no doubt that vaccines saved many lives, and were very appropriate for some segments of the population.  I've never been anti-vax.  Just anti-mandate, and very much in favor of full disclosure, allowing informed decisions.

This is a statement of your opinion. Nowt wrong with that.

 

I con't agree with your first-line sentiment. What segments of the population would that be?

 

But I do agree with the second line. the west's MSM have gradually turned the screw on opposing views. One of my major beefs, is with the compromised MSM. In the UK, we now have OFCOM saying what can and cannot be said on the www.

 

The BBC, was caught out many times during covid. Not heard them retract much.

Edited October 4, 2023 by owl sees all

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

8 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

The other guys quoted in support, a group called Healio are even funnier.

Again, I realize you have little to no familiarity with the concept of credible sources... so let me give you an example:

 

PRO-SCIENCE

Overall, we rate Healio Pro-Science based on well-sourced peer-reviewed research and low biased and factual news. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sources and a clean fact-check record.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/healio/

 

[Eleftheros]

8 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Again, I realize you have little to no familiarity with the concept of credible sources... so let me give you an example:

 

PRO-SCIENCE

Overall, we rate Healio Pro-Science based on well-sourced peer-reviewed research and low biased and factual news. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sources and a clean fact-check record.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/healio/

 

Ah, the fabulous self-styled "fact-checkers" again. As they have earned no right to credibility, nor do the people they recommend.

 

They are not "credible" sources, but rather sources for the credulous.

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

13 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Ah, the fabulous self-styled "fact-checkers" again. As they have earned no right to credibility, nor do the people they recommend.

 

They are not "credible" sources, but rather sources for the credulous.

Facts and well-sourced peer-reviewed research as provided by the Pro-Science Healio seems to be a problem for you.

[Bkk Brian]

9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Albert Bourla, Pfizer CEO, does not share that view:

 

“mRNA was a technology, but we had less experience, only two years working on this, and actually, mRNA was a technology that never delivered a single product until that day, not vaccine, not any other medicine. So it was very counterintuitive, and I was surprised when they suggested to me that this is the way to go, and I questioned it. And I asked them to justify how can you say something like that, but they came, and they were very, very convinced that this is the right way to go.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/washington-post-live/2022/03/10/transcript-wp-subscriber-exclusive-albert-bourla-author-moonshot-inside-pfizers-nine-month-race-make-impossible-possible/

In what way are you claiming Albert Bourla did not share that view? Nobody claimed human trialed vaccines or medicines had been delivered before via mRNA. He was also not involved in the decades of previous research and development  working on this technology. 

 

No one woke up on a morning in December and decided that an mRNA vaccine was the way to go without any prior knowledge of the science.

[Eleftheros]

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Facts and well-sourced peer-reviewed research as provided by the Pro-Science Healio seems to be a problem for you.

Let's say that I have a healthy and well-earned skepticism about large medical companies spruiking their own products.

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Let's say that I have a healthy and well-earned skepticism about large medical companies spruiking their own products.

Yes don't let facts get in the way of that skepticism

[Eleftheros]

43 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes don't let facts get in the way of that skepticism

Facts are what the skepticism is based on.

 

There's an important difference between "facts", and what "fact-checkers" say.

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

Facts are what the skepticism is based on.

 

There's an important difference between "facts", and what "fact-checkers" say.

Really. Can you find some facts to support your claim in that link on Healio? 

[owl sees all]

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes don't let facts get in the way of that skepticism

What facts? Interesting to look at where these 'fact-checkers' get their funding.

 

In my opinion the medical, and sections of science peer reviewed papers are compromised nonsense. A well, researched and documented paper will not get 'peer reviewed' if it does not adhere to the main line. What is the main line? Simply follow the money.

 

Can't get a article in Lancet or Nature if it asks uncomfortable questions.. Just a big boy's club.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, owl sees all said:

What facts? Interesting to look at where these 'fact-checkers' get their funding.

 

In my opinion the medical, and sections of science peer reviewed papers are compromised nonsense. A well, researched and documented paper will not get 'peer reviewed' if it does not adhere to the main line. What is the main line? Simply follow the money.

 

Can't get a article in Lancet or Nature if it asks uncomfortable questions.. Just a big boy's club.

"What facts?"

 

Show me some examples of where they got their facts wrong.

[owl sees all]

8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

"What facts?"

 

Show me some examples of where they got their facts wrong.

Most fact-checkers regarding medical matters are, in my opinion, compromised. Look at who funds them. Don't bite the hand that feed you. As well as being compromised, they are starting from an unproven source. Going against nature.

 

If one builds a skyscraper in a swamp; sooner or later it will fail.

Edited October 5, 2023 by owl sees all

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, owl sees all said:

Most fact-checkers regarding medical matters are in my opinion compromised. Look at who funds them. Don't bite the hand that feed you. As well as being compromised, they are starting from an unproven source. Going against nature.

 

If one builds a skyscraper in a swamp; sooner or later it will fail.

Ok, so an opinion not based on facts, rather than real facts from the the fact checkers, thanks for the clarification

[xylophone]

12 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Albert Bourla, Pfizer CEO, does not share that view:

 

“mRNA was a technology, but we had less experience, only two years working on this, and actually, mRNA was a technology that never delivered a single product until that day, not vaccine, not any other medicine. So it was very counterintuitive, and I was surprised when they suggested to me that this is the way to go, and I questioned it. And I asked them to justify how can you say something like that, but they came, and they were very, very convinced that this is the right way to go.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/washington-post-live/2022/03/10/transcript-wp-subscriber-exclusive-albert-bourla-author-moonshot-inside-pfizers-nine-month-race-make-impossible-possible/

You "cherry-picked" the above from an article thereby taking it out of context. mRNA was being worked on by other companies and the technology was known in the 1960s. There were other companies working with this technology, albeit much later on, such as: Moderna (who had a development pipeline of 21 programs), BioNTech, Sanofi, Translate Bio and Curevac.

 

The saving of millions of lives with the potential to wipe out many other diseases means this was a breakthrough of epic proportions.

[owl sees all]

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Ok, so an opinion not based on facts, rather than real facts from the the fact checkers, thanks for the clarification

You have it completely the wrong way round.

 

Your position/stance is not based on any proven science or 'fact' or 'truth'. Evidence even!

 

Nature has the answers. It's been around for a lot longer than us. Nature shows us the way. Try to learn from it Brian.

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by owl sees all

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, owl sees all said:

You have it completely the wrong way round.

 

Your position/stance is not based on any proven science or 'fact' or 'truth'.

 

Nature has the answers. It's been around for a lot longer than us. Nature shows us the way. Try to learn from it Brian.

 

Nope, I keep it the right way round.

 

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source"

 

Do you have anything to discuss on the actual topic?

 

Covid-19 mRNA Vaccines Win Nobel Prize for Medicine 2023

 

 

[xylophone]

8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Ok, so an opinion not based on facts, rather than real facts from the the fact checkers, thanks for the clarification

Don't forget that you are "talking" to a rabid anti-vaxxer, so nothing you post, even from the most reliable of sources, will sink in...........they are on the same wavelength as "the election was stolen" mob.

[owl sees all]

14 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Nope, I keep it the right way round.

 

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source"

 

Do you have anything to discuss on the actual topic?

 

Covid-19 mRNA Vaccines Win Nobel Prize for Medicine 2023

 

 

And you cannot produce anything to support your claims that are 'truth'.

 

The Nobel prize for medicine is simply to reinforce Big Pharma, and those that have thrown their lot in the ring. A total nonsense if ever there was one.

 

What about a Nobel prize to Andrew Wakefield or Stefan Lanka? Much more worthy IMO.

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by owl sees all
Corrected a name

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, owl sees all said:

And you cannot produce anything to support your claims that are 'truth'.

 

The Nobel prize for medicine is simply to reinforce Big Pharma, and those that have thrown their lot in the ring. A total nonsense if ever there was one.

 

What about a Nobel prize to Andrew Wakefield or Stephan Lanker? Much more worthy IMO.

 

"What about a Nobel prize to Andrew Wakefield or Stephan Lanker? Much more worthy IMO."

 

Start a new topic in the pub section if you want, I'm done with your off topic deflective nonsense

[owl sees all]

4 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Don't forget that you are "talking" to a rabid anti-vaxxer, so nothing you post, even from the most reliable of sources, will sink in...........they are on the same wavelength as "the election was stolen" mob.

I guess you are talking about me.

 

Let me tell you something Sir; I am an authority on viruses. Although I've not had a paper in Nature or Lancet, I've published many essays on the subject. In fact I write for a monthy newspaper/magazine on this very subject.

 

None so blind as will not see.

[owl sees all]

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

"What about a Nobel prize to Andrew Wakefield or Stephan Lanker? Much more worthy IMO."

 

Start a new topic in the pub section if you want, I'm done with your off topic deflective nonsense

Throwing your rattles out the pram, because someone doesn't agree with you? Very adult.

 

If you are done with me; so be it. Hope you learned something.

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Throwing your rattles out the pram, because someone doesn't agree with you? Very adult.

 

If you are done with me; so be it. Hope you learned something.

No sticking to the topic, just not entertaining your nonsense

[owl sees all]

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

No sticking to the topic, just not entertaining your nonsense

So you are not done?! Good to see you back Brian.

 

Nothing I post is any more off topic than your musings. In fact, I'm very much on-topic; as you well know. You just have no argument against the truth.