China Bashing

[Nominal Animal]

As to mRNA-based medicine, ............

Pleased you describe it as such, a vaccine it is not !

Why not?

Because the technical definition of "vaccine" had to be modified for it to apply to them.  In particular, they only need to provide some reduction in the probability of "immunity" against further infection by the same SARS-CoV-2 virus, to be called "vaccines" under the new definition.  If we apply say year 2000 definitions and international requirements, none of the mRNA-based ones fulfill the vaccine definition requirements (especially the 50% immunization requirement).

The proper term (instead of "vaccine") is mRNA therapeutics.

Now, don't rope me in, because therapeutic is the medically and scientifically proper term (and includes any future mRNA-based vaccines too), with "mRNA-based medicine" even a much wider term that does not cause intuitive inferences in conflict with the proper term and its meaning: neither excludes vaccines.  I myself have both recommended them and recommended against them when close ones have asked my own opinion (for age 65+ yes to first dose, no to everyone else in basic good health, the rest on a case-by-case basis); and I fully stand behind those suggestions now with the statistical results of various approaches being somewhat available.  It is also not a simple issue at all, with both patient genetics, protein folding due to replication errors, the spike protein itself being toxic (to heart muscle cells), and fast mass manufacturing issues leading to quality issues involved in the soup.

[tautech]

I myself have both recommended them and recommended against them when close ones have asked my own opinion (for age 65+ yes to first dose, no to everyone else in basic good health, the rest on a case-by-case basis); and I fully stand behind those suggestions now with the statistical results of various approaches being somewhat available.

Research here demonstrates otherwise.
At 63 I had a heart attack not long after mRNA therapeutics taken to combat the threat of travel restrictions and I'm not about to have another mRNA therapeutic as long as I live.

PPL, you've been sucked in by big Pharma and Gubbermints when you run a higher risk of dying from Pneumonia than the Spicy Flu.

[zilp]

As to mRNA-based medicine, ............

Pleased you describe it as such, a vaccine it is not !

Why not?

Because the technical definition of "vaccine" had to be modified for it to apply to them.

So, silicon diodes aren't diodes, then?

And also ... essentially no vaccine is a vaccine, because the original definition was the infection with cowpox, where "vacca" is latin for "cow", hence "vaccination"? Using pieces of influenza viruses bred in chicken eggs certainly can't be vaccines, given that no cows are involved!

I mean, seriously, why would the fact that experts changed a definition to fit technological developments that weren't foreseen when the original definition was written, be a reason for laypeople to stick to the old definition as "more correct"?

In particular, they only need to provide some reduction in the probability of "immunity" against further infection by the same SARS-CoV-2 virus, to be called "vaccines" under the new definition.  If we apply say year 2000 definitions and international requirements, none of the mRNA-based ones fulfill the vaccine definition requirements (especially the 50% immunization requirement).

OK ... so? What is lacking here is a justification for why the old definition should be the preferred definition.

The proper term (instead of "vaccine") is mRNA therapeutics.

I mean, not that that is a wrong term, I guess, but the specific therapeutic also happens to be a vaccine, as far as I can tell, and so far you haven't explained why  not.

[Postal2]

.... the spike protein itself being toxic (to heart muscle cells), ....

In my opinion, it affects the brain as well. Elon Musk needs a double dose.

[zilp]

At 63 I had a heart attack not long after mRNA therapeutics taken to combat the threat of travel restrictions and I'm not about to have another mRNA therapeutic as long as I live.

How do you know that that heart attack was because of the vaccine, assuming that that is what you are implying here?

(And not, for example, because of a SARS-CoV-2 infection, as one of many possible causes.)

Also, given that your conclusion is to not use any further mRNA therapeutics, and assuming that the vaccine was indeed the cause for your heart attack: How did you determine that the relevant component was the "mRNA" part of the vaccine and not the "SARS-CoV-2 spike protein" part? After all, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to avoid mRNA therapeutics when the cause for your problems was a thing that is not in any other mRNA therapeutics, would it?

PPL, you've been sucked in by big Pharma and Gubbermints when you run a higher risk of dying from Pneumonia than the Spicy Flu.

Can you be more specific? Like, what are the numbers that you are deriving this conclusion from?

[Nominal Animal]

So, silicon diodes aren't diodes, then?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

(It is you who insist calling the devices silicon diodes, whereas I'm using diodes (therapeutics) or semiconductors (x-based medicine).  As the devices aren't composed of mostly silicon, I do not believe the term "silicon diode" even applies.)

I mean, seriously, why would the fact that experts changed a definition to fit technological developments that weren't foreseen when the original definition was written, be a reason for laypeople to stick to the old definition as "more correct"?

Because dropping the minimum 50% immunity requirement was not done by experts, it was solely done by politicians (and civil servants on behalf of politicians) with no expert or scientist involvement.

I do trust the scientists and experts as much as one can trust humans in general for anything (we all err, we all have biases, and so on).
I do not trust politicians and civil servants acting on behalf of politicians to set the definition of "vaccine".

What is lacking here is a justification for why the old definition should be the preferred definition.

Simply put:  I am happy and willing to inject myself with something that gives me at least a 50% immunity against something dangerous –– assuming that I'm given sufficient information about the risk and side effects, and the possibility of suing the manufacturer if they lie.  The new definition breaks the first, and the deals the politicians made (with zero expert advice) with the manufacturing companies in the EU prohibit the second.

Dropping the 50% immunization requirement was not a medical decision, it was a political one, and that alone is enough for the old definition to be preferable to the new one.

I myself have both recommended them and recommended against them when close ones have asked my own opinion (for age 65+ yes to first dose, no to everyone else in basic good health, the rest on a case-by-case basis); and I fully stand behind those suggestions now with the statistical results of various approaches being somewhat available.

Research here demonstrates otherwise.

Perhaps; this is my opinion based on the currently available statistics.  Anecdotally, I do not personally know any 65+ who took more than one dose who do not suffer from cardiovascular issues, but I suppose it could be sampling bias, or muddling correlation with causation.

The science as to the spike protein itself being toxic to heart muscle cells and causing severe clotting issues if entering vascular wall cells, could easily change my opinion.  The related research is still ongoing.

.... the spike protein itself being toxic (to heart muscle cells), ....

In my opinion, it affects the brain as well. Elon Musk needs a double dose.

  Actually, it is extremely unlikely it could pass the blood-brain barrier at all.  Vascular wall cells and heart muscles are currently known to be damaged by susceptible to damage from the spike protein, but the spike protein itself just isn't researched widely enough yet (its effect in different kinds of tissues, instead of just at the single-cell level).  For example, research into its interaction with pluripotent stem cells (in e.g. umbilical blood) and the effect on the resulting differentiated cells will reveal a lot more, when some high-skill team gathers enough courage (as this can risk their future funding sources) to find out.

[Postal2]

.... when some high-skill team gathers enough courage ....

It will be a couple of schoolchildren skipping classes. I already gave an example. What other "highly qualified teams"? It's just a bunch of parasites, appropriating other people's achievements (as in my example).

[zilp]

So, silicon diodes aren't diodes, then?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

(It is you who insist calling the devices silicon diodes, whereas I'm using diodes (therapeutics) or semiconductors (x-based medicine).  As the devices aren't composed of mostly silicon, I do not believe the term "silicon diode" even applies.)

Let me explain the analogy: "diode" was (I think?) a name coined for two-terminal tubes. That definition was then later changed to also include semiconductor devices due to similar application. If it's wrong to change definitions, then we shouldn't be calling silicon diodes diodes, but only by their "correct" name, that is, rectifiers. Light emitting rectifiers and all that.

I mean, seriously, why would the fact that experts changed a definition to fit technological developments that weren't foreseen when the original definition was written, be a reason for laypeople to stick to the old definition as "more correct"?

Because dropping the minimum 50% immunity requirement was not done by experts, it was solely done by politicians (and civil servants on behalf of politicians) with no expert or scientist involvement.

I do trust the scientists and experts as much as one can trust humans in general for anything (we all err, we all have biases, and so on).
I do not trust politicians and civil servants acting on behalf of politicians to set the definition of "vaccine".

Who wrote the previous definition?

What is lacking here is a justification for why the old definition should be the preferred definition.

Simply put:  I am happy and willing to inject myself with something that gives me at least a 50% immunity against something dangerous –– assuming that I'm given sufficient information about the risk and side effects,

OK. And why shouldn't we call particular treatments that you don't want to take "vaccines"? Like, if that is a criterion that you use to decide which treatments to take, that's fine with me, but I don't see how it follows that we therefore then shouldn't still call the treatments that you reject "vaccines"!? Like, you still haven't explained why the old definition was a better definition, you just have told us that you personally use the old definition to decide which treatments you are willing to take.

and the possibility of suing the manufacturer if they lie.  The new definition breaks the first,

How does the new definition break you being happy and willing to inject yourself with treatments that fall under the old definition? Or how does it prevent you from being given sufficient information about the risks and side effects? Are you trying to say that it is not publicly known that the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines don't provide sterilizing immunity? Or ... what?

and the deals the politicians made (with zero expert advice) with the manufacturing companies in the EU prohibit the second.

Do you have a source for that?

It seems rather surprising to me that it would be possible to limit liability towards third parties in a contract!?

[Phil1977]

.... when some high-skill team gathers enough courage ....

It will be a couple of schoolchildren skipping classes. I already gave an example. What other "highly qualified teams"? It's just a bunch of parasites, appropriating other people's achievements (as in my example).

This really is an offensive and very short sighted statement.

The founders of Biontech are a very down to earth scientist couple who worked for a decade BEFORE the pandemic on this class of medication with a large experts team and already had an absolutely normal approval for their medical product of mRNA before Corona. When the pandemic spread they modified their product as fast as possible to fight covid - and of course they got a lot of money to do it.

Of course, there is all this conspirational bullshit out there. But please don't be so dumb to fall for it.

[Postal2]

... conspirational bullshit ...

I gave a specific and confirmed example, when a schoolboy came with a smartphone to the institute, where the Great Scientists sit, and did everything.
In the same way, Keller came and made a processor.
I don’t know about Biontech, but you speak about it in the same words as propaganda about the Great Scientists, who, working as a close-knit team, deciphered the virus.

[Phil1977]

... conspirational bullshit ...

I gave a specific and confirmed example, when a schoolboy came with a smartphone to the institute, where the Great Scientists sit, and did everything.
In the same way, Keller came and made a processor.
I don’t know about Biontech, but you speak about it in the same words as propaganda about the Great Scientists, who, working as a close-knit team, deciphered the virus.

The difference is that the Biontech story is easy to proof - just read the publications they made BEFORE corona inside the scientific community. And I can tell by many first hand experiences that scientific communities are very averse to political propaganda stuff, there are just to many people of different nations and different political orientation working together and have one thing in mind: Creating knowledge.

And by no doubt there are cases where more or less external people had great inventions, sometimes you even need the "naive" ideas of an outsider. BUT: Making a new class of medication or just even to keep the scientific topic alive for decades is never the merit of a single person. If you want to believe it or not, that´s hard work and its teamwork.

[Postal2]

... just read the publications they made ...

As soon as I see "they" - I immediately suspect that it was done by one person, and perhaps not included in the list. I have read publications signed by one person. Previously, this was called a "monograph", but the desire to latch on to someone else's is so great that even this was changed.