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.

Okay. Have you ever seen a machine that cuts stumps with a conical cutter that moves sideways? My father invented and designed this machine, but the list of authors includes 20 people who had nothing to do with it.

Until you have developed some technology yourself, it is difficult for you to understand that there is no such thing as a "team". There is one person.

[Xena E]

... 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.

Whatever the situation there's always a rush to be the first and win the biggest slice of the pie, and with the paymasters pushing for results there are always likely to be cock-ups.

Case study:
End 2020 subject female, 32 years, 105lb/48kg. Active. BP at rest 100/70

After two doses of Astra Zeneca during 2021, began to experience leg pains and heart palpitations, pain in feet legs  and hands, end of year 2021.

Beginning of 2022 weight 100lbs/46kg. Unable to walk 1mile without effort. BP at rest 150/105

Diagnosed with Atrial tachycardia early 2022, and circulatory problems in legs.

Doctors wouldn't make any connection with the injections but advised against boosters.

Make of that what you will.

Regards.
X

[ebastler]

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.

You seem deeply cynical and wary of many things in life and society. Maybe this has to do with the society you live in. But then, seeing that you are also distrustful of LCD displays and prefer to take a 1978 car magazine writeup as gospel on polarized light, maybe it has to do with you?

[RJSV]

   My head hurts, just after reading multiples of replies, here.   Yes, I am guilty, of being up the basic subject.   All started with Phil1977 starting down the road, of 'China human rights, of their workers'....(technology supply chain,....remember).   So, I felt obligated to unbash China, by pointing out human rights in (U.S.A) aren't good enough that we can bash China only, as if China is the only offender.
   Bringing up the COVID mandates was a bad move, even though a valid point.

   But now, my head hurts reading these posts, especially laden with numerous double-negatives, and genetic references.   Supposed to be about ELECTRONICS SUPPLY, here.

It's the sentences containing numerous negative assertions that are hard to parse, although somewhat humorous.   Making me squint as I read....

[Wallace Gasiewicz]

Quote from: Postal2 on Today at 07:32:11 am

I am attracted to themes of corporate greed and global dumbing down. The topic of Covid is exactly about this. The thing is that adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine - this is the school curriculum in biology and organic chemistry. You can quickly differ when a person talking about Covid did not go to school.         

Adenosine, Cytidine, Guanosine and Uridine are the building blocks of Messenger RNA.   

But it is Modified RNA in the "Vaccine":  SO  PseudoUridine is used instead of Uridine   in Modified RNA . Or change any other nucleoside.     
Please note that "Modified RNA" is different from "Messenger RNA"  but the abbreviationThe term mRNA which previously was used ONLY for Messenger RNA is now used for Modified RNA.    It really should be called modRNA as in the past. The nomenclature has been made confusing. This is My Opinion.    Modified RNA is artificial, not found in nature.

[Postal2]

.... maybe it has to do with you?

When various idiots first started picking on me, it was a long time ago, I couldn't understand what was going on. It turns out that a poorly performing student chooses a well-performing one in order to take it out on him and assert himself.

[Nominal Animal]

Case study: End 2020 subject female, 32 years, 105lb/48kg. Active. BP at rest 100/70

Keep monitoring your legs for blockages, especially anything indicating lack of blood flow.  There are some indications that if the spike protein is produced by vein wall cells, blockages (as in literal clotting) can occur in interaction with fibrinogen somehow.

I didn't know you're a young'un! 

Like, you still haven't explained why ...

And I'm not going go, either.  I simply explained why I used a specific term, and described details anyone can examine (via the link I provided, preferably, the Lancet being quite reliable and with a two-century tradition to keep, as far as scientific publications go).  I'm not here to convince you, or debate opinions.

Do you have a source for [the deals the politicians made in the EU]?

It is all in the public record, and you'd know that if you had read them (at europa.eu) instead of trusting the opinion of someone who claims having read them.
No matter what links I'd provide, you'd call them unreliable or unauthoritative or not supporting my argument, so I won't bother; I'm not here to convince you or anyone else, just showing what my own opinion is based on.  The opinion itself is at best an afterthought; of very little value to anyone.

As you don't bother to provide any basis for your own opinions that you present as facts, I don't think anyone else should bother responding to your pseudo-arguments with factual references either: this is discussion, not a game.  (And I use "pseudo-argument" here in the sense Chaim Perelman originally coined it.)

[RJSV]

   (I know there is no compulsion, to read and follow this shi7, actually entertaining, in a lame way, and generates more clicks)

   I'm refraining from stopping hoping, that arguments that avoid skipping facts, about messinger Rna not being used or cases where modifications have not been skipped ....are valid.
(That's why you aren't stupid).


   The text above is my take on trying read the posts, that are mired in double negatives, (or more literally peppered with negatives on top of negatives, on top of ....).

   But, humorously, the ACTUAL posts, here, are much better, at being hard to read and understand, than any PARODY that I can do.

   It's just that I don't wish to directly insult anybody, here....no point in doing that!

[zilp]

Do you have a source for [the deals the politicians made in the EU]?

It is all in the public record, and you'd know that if you had read them (at europa.eu) instead of trusting the opinion of someone who claims having read them.

The weird thing is that when I ask people who claim to have read them to provide the source, they refuse to do so.

No matter what links I'd provide, you'd call them unreliable or unauthoritative or not supporting my argument, so I won't bother;

Are you saying that you intended to provide evidence that is unreliable or unauthoritative or not supporting your argument? Why would you do that?

As you don't bother to provide any basis for your own opinions that you present as facts, I don't think anyone else should bother responding to your pseudo-arguments with factual references either: this is discussion, not a game.  (And I use "pseudo-argument" here in the sense Chaim Perelman originally coined it.)

I don't remember you asking for any further support for any claim that I made?! Did I miss something? Feel free to point me to what I missed ...

[zilp]

Do you have a source for [the deals the politicians made in the EU]?

It is all in the public record, and you'd know that if you had read them (at europa.eu) instead of trusting the opinion of someone who claims having read them.

For anyone reading here who maybe has not figured out yet why this is bullshit and why Nominal  Animal is lashing out against me instead of doing the obvious thing of providing sources for their claims:

https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/covid19-vaccines-19-2022/en/:

A citizen who has suffered adverse effects from one of the COVID-19 vaccines purchased under the contracts can claim damages against the manufacturer of the vaccine. If the claim is successful, the Member State that administered the vaccine will be responsible for compensating the injured party and paying the vaccine manufacturer’s legal costs (indemnification) (see Figure 3). This is not the case if the damages or losses result from wilful misconduct, gross negligence or failure to comply with EU good manufacturing practices.

So ... yeah, of course you can sue the vaccine manufacturer if you were damaged by their vaccine, and they are, of course, liable exactly as with any other medical product that they are selling. Who would have thought ...

The only thing somewhat special about the Covid 19 vaccines is that the manufacturer will be reimbursed for the damages they have to pay to you plus associated expenses by the state under certain circumstances. Which obviously is a thing you can effectively agree on in a contract, in contrast to removing liability towards third parties. And which also isn't actually that unusual for vaccines, and is also a perfectly sensible thing to do for a government.

(edit: to avoid any confusion: yes, technically, the manufacturer isn't reimbursed for the damages payment, but instead the damages are paid directly by the state, but that obviously is exclusively to the benefit of the damaged person, as this means that they'll get the payment even in the case that the manufacturer goes bankrupt.)

And also, no, of course, that contractual agreement does not cover the case of the manufacturer lying. If the damage is a result of the manufacturer lying, then they won't even be reimbursed.

In any case, it is obviously complete nonsense that you can't sue Covid 19 vaccine manufacturers for damages from those vaccines.

[Postal2]

....   Modified RNA is artificial, not found in nature.

Even when we know the exact structure, we can't predict how it works. I don't know enough about it to dig deeper, but what I've learned scares me. It could really mess with the hereditary machinery.

.... instead of doing the obvious thing of providing sources for their claims.....

Because the sources were studied 4 years ago and it takes time to find them. Spending half an hour on each of your questions, of which there are many, is unacceptable.

[Nominal Animal]

Feel free to point me to what I missed ...

Reality.  You missed reality.

[ebastler]

Feel free to point me to what I missed ...

Reality.  You missed reality.

Sorry, but that's lame. It was you who insisted that "It is all in the public record, and you'd know that if you had read them (at europa.eu)". And after zilp followed your lead, dug up and quoted the relevant rules on damages, that is your comeback?

[Kim Christensen]

50 minute video is a unique insight into today's China

Thanks for that. Interesting to see how they've cleaned up the larger cities by using mostly electric vehicles. There's also quite a cleanliness contrast between those huge factories and some of the smaller ones.
One thing I thought was funny was when the guy gets stopped for taking a Lithium battery onto the bullet train because it's capacity is too large. So he mails it onward to his next hotel, but then later on continues to take the same trains. Doesn't really say what he did with the battery for those subsequent trips.