ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 1277 of 1626
« First < 27777711771227126712731274127512761277 1278127912801281128713271377 > Last »
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>Are you going to take the vaccine?
GloryDayz 08:48 AM 12-01-2020
I know I'm going to try to be first in line, but what about the rest of you? I'm not sure if the death count is where the science community wants it to be, plus Birdbrain hasn't been sworn in, so I expect there will be delays, but that's beside the point.

You can be honest.
[Reply]
banyon 11:36 AM 10-28-2021
Originally Posted by Donger:
CDC received the first virus sample on January 20, 2020. They generated enough virus grown in cell culture to distribute to medical and scientific researchers by February 2, 2020.

I have no idea if Fauci had anything to do with that or not. I doubt it.
Makes sense to me. :-)

NO! It must be evidence of the grand conspiracy!
[Reply]
MahomesMagic 11:42 AM 10-28-2021
The Serendipitous Origins of Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine

When early January 2020 brought news of a novel coronavirus outbreak originating in Wuhan, China, Moderna’s CEO Stéphane Bancel immediately emailed Barney Graham, deputy director of the Vaccine Research Center at the National Institutes of Health, and asked to be sent the genetic sequence for what would become known as SAR-CoV-2, allegedly because media reports on the outbreak “troubled” him. The date of that email varies according to different media reports, though most place it as having been sent on either January 6th or 7th.

A few weeks before Bancel’s email to Graham, Moderna was quickly approaching the end of the line, their desperately needed “Hail Mary” still not having materialized. “We were freaked out about money,” Stephen Hoge would later remember of Moderna’s late 2019 circumstances. Not only were executives “cutting back on research and other expenditures” like never before, but – as STAT News would later report – “cash from investors had stopped pouring in and partnerships with some drug makers had been discontinued. In meetings at Moderna, Bancel emphasized the need to stretch every dollar and employees were told to reduce travel and other expenses, a frugality there were advised would last several years.”

At the tail end of 2019, Graham was in a very different mood than Bancel, having emailed the leader of the coronavirus team at his NIH lab saying, “Get ready for 2020,” apparently viewing the news out of Wuhan in late 2019 as a harbinger of something significant. He went on, in the days before he was contacted by Bancel, to “run a drill he had been turning over in his mind for years” and called his long-time colleague Jason McLellan “to talk about the game plan” for getting a head start on producing a vaccine the world did not yet know it needed. When Bancel called Graham soon afterward and asked about this new virus, Graham responded that he didn’t know yet but that “they were ready if it turned out to be a coronavirus.” The Washington Post claimed that Graham’s apparent foreknowledge that a coronavirus vaccine would be needed before anyone officially knew what type of disease was circulating in Wuhan was a fortunate mix of “serendipity and foresight.”

A report in Boston magazine offers a slightly different account than that reported by the Washington Post. Per that article, Graham had told Bancel, “If [the virus] is a coronavirus, we know what to do and have proven mRNA is effective.” Per that report, this assertion of efficacy from Graham referred to Moderna’s early stage human-trial data published in September 2019 regarding its chikungunya vaccine candidate, which was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), as well as its cytomegalovirus (CMV) vaccine candidate.

As mentioned in Part I of this series, the chikungunya vaccine study data released at that time included the participation of just four subjects, three of whom developed significant side effects that led Moderna to state that they would reformulate the vaccine in question and would pause trials on that vaccine candidate. In the case of the CMV vaccine candidate, the data was largely positive, but it was widely noted that the vaccine still needed to pass through larger and longer clinical trials before its efficacy was in fact “proven,” as Graham later claimed. In addition, Graham implied that this early stage trial of Moderna’s CMV vaccine candidate was somehow proof that an mRNA vaccine would be effective against coronaviruses, which makes little sense since CMV is not a coronavirus but instead hails from the family of viruses that includes chickenpox, herpes, and shingles.

The year 2017, besides being the year when Moderna made its pivot to vaccines (due to its inability to produce safe multidose therapies, see Part I), was also a big year for Graham. That year he and his lab filed a patent for the “2P mutation” technique whereby recombinant coronavirus spike proteins can be stabilized in a prefusion state and used as more effective immunogens. If a coronavirus vaccine were to be produced using this patent, Graham’s team would financially benefit, though federal law caps their annual royalties. Nonetheless, it would still yield a considerable sum for the named researchers, including Graham.

However, due to the well-known difficulties with coronavirus vaccine development, including antibody dependent enhancement risk, it seemed that commercial use of Graham’s patent was a pipe dream. Yet, today, the 2P mutation patent, also known as the ’070 patent, is not just in use in Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, but also in the COVID-19 vaccines produced by Johnson & Johnson, Novavax, Pfizer/BioNTech, and CureVac. Experts at New York University School of Law have noted that the 2P mutation patent first filed in 2016 “sounds remarkably prescient” in light of the COVID crisis that emerged a few years later while later publications from the NIH (still pre-COVID) revealed that the NIH’s view on “the breadth and importance of the ’070 patent” as well as its potential commercial applications was also quite prescient, given that there was little justification at the time to hold such a view.

On January 10, three days after the reported initial conversation between Bancel and Graham on the novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China, Graham met with Hamilton Bennett, the program leader for Moderna’s vaccine portfolio. Graham asked Bennett “if Moderna would be interested in using the new [novel coronavirus] to test the company’s accelerated vaccine-making capabilities.” According to Boston, Graham then mused, “That way . . . if ever there came a day when a new virus emerged that threatened global public health, Moderna and the NIH could know how long it would take them to respond.”

Graham’s “musings” to Bennett are interesting considering his earlier statements made to others, such as “Get ready for 2020” and his team, in collaboration with Moderna, would be “ready if [the virus then circulating in Wuhan, China] turned out to be a coronavirus.” Is this merely “serendipity” and “foresight”, as the Washington Post suggested, or was it something else? It is worth noting that the above accounts are those that have been given by Bancel and Graham themselves, as the actual contents of these critical January 2020 emails have not been publicly released.

When the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 was published on January 11, NIH scientists and Moderna researchers got to work determining which targeted genetic sequence would be used in their vaccine candidate. Later reports, however, claimed that this initial work toward a COVID-19 vaccine was merely intended to be a “demonstration project.”

Other odd features of the Moderna-NIH COVID-19 vaccine-development story emerged with Bancel’s account of the role the World Economic Forum played in shaping his “foresight” when it came to the development of a COVID-19 vaccine back in January 2020. On January 21, 2020, Bancel reportedly began to hear about “a far darker version of the future” at the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, where he spent time with “two [anonymous] prominent infectious-disease experts from Europe” who shared with him data from “their contacts on the ground in China, including Wuhan.” That data, per Bancel, showed a dire situation that left his mind “reeling” and led him to conclude, that very day, that “this isn’t going to be SARS. It’s going to be the 1918 flu pandemic.”

As also noted in Part I of this series, a few months earlier, in October 2019, major players in what would become the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, particularly Rick Bright and Anthony Fauci, had discussed during a Milken Institute panel on vaccines how a “disruptive” event would be needed to push the public to accept “nontraditional” vaccines such as mRNA vaccines; to convince the public that flu-like illnesses are scarier than traditionally believed; and to remove existing bureaucratic safeguards in the vaccine development-and-approval processes.

That panel took place less than two weeks after the Event 201 simulation, jointly hosted by the World Economic Forum, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Event 201 simulated “an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus” that was “modeled largely on SARS but . . . more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms.” The recommendations of the simulation panel were to considerably increase investment in new vaccine technologies and industrial approaches, favoring rapid vaccine development and manufacturing. As mentioned in Part I, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security had also conducted the June 2001 Dark Winter simulation that briefly preceded and predicted major aspects of the 2001 anthrax attacks, and some of its participants had apparent foreknowledge of those attacks. Other Dark Winter participants later worked to sabotage the FBI investigation into those attacks after their origin was traced back to a US military source.

It is hard to imagine that Bancel, whose company had long been closely partnered with the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation, was unaware of the exercise and surprised by the closely analogous event that transpired within three months. Given the accounts given by Bancel, Graham, and others, it seems likely there is more to the story regarding the origins of Moderna’s early and “serendipitous” push to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. In addition, given that Moderna was in dire financial circumstances at the time, it seems odd that the company would gamble everything on a vaccine project that was opposed by the few investors that were still willing to fund Moderna in January/February 2020. Why would they divert their scant resources towards a project born only out of Barney Graham’s “musings” that Moderna could try to test the speed of its vaccine development capabilities and Bancel’s doomsday view that a “biblical plague” was imminent, especially when their investors opposed the idea?

Moderna and the NIH were, nevertheless, taken at their word in November 2020 when they said that their COVID-19 vaccine candidate was 94.5 percent effective. At the time, the main promoters of this claim were Moderna’s Bancel and NIAID’s Fauci. The claim came shortly after Pfizer’s press release claiming its COVID-19 vaccine candidate was 90 percent effective. Not to be outdone by Moderna, Pfizer revised the reported efficacy of its vaccine just two days after Moderna’s November press release, stating that their vaccine was actually 95% effective to Moderna’s 94.5%. In the case of these claims, it was indicative of the now-established yet troubling practice of “science by press release” when it comes to touting the benefit of certain COVID-19 vaccines currently on the market. Since then, real-world data has shattered the efficacy claims that were used to secure emergency use authorization, for which Moderna applied at the end of November 2020 and received only a few weeks later in mid-December of that year.

https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/10...s-its-miracle/
[Reply]
KCChiefsFan88 12:03 PM 10-28-2021
Originally Posted by Donger:
I don't have one.
Dog Killer Fauci.
[Reply]
lawrenceRaider 12:11 PM 10-28-2021
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
Fauci can see into the Future.

??? When do you think the first death happened in Wuhan?
[Reply]
RaidersOftheCellar 01:17 PM 10-28-2021
Originally Posted by Donger:
Of course I am. Do I need to bold it for you?
So the guy who brings up Baye's Theorem 700 times/day sees nothing wrong with using totals from December to the present?:-)
[Reply]
Donger 01:26 PM 10-28-2021
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
So the guy who brings up Baye's Theorem 700 times/day sees nothing wrong with using totals from December to the present?:-)
Not at all. What other timeframe would you suggest using to get the percentage of deaths among the vaccinated and unvaccinated since vaccinations began?

As I said, I fully expected the 76.8% to drop because of Bayes' theorem and guess what? It has.
[Reply]
RaidersOftheCellar 01:28 PM 10-28-2021
Donger, do you not realize that 25% in that period doesn't reflect favorably on the vaccine at all? And, of course, this doesn't include all those "mystery" deaths that weren't attributed to Covid.
[Reply]
RaidersOftheCellar 01:31 PM 10-28-2021
Originally Posted by Donger:
Not at all. What other timeframe would you suggest using to get the percentage of deaths among the vaccinated and unvaccinated since vaccinations began?

As I said, I fully expected the 76.8% to drop because of Bayes' theorem and guess what? It has.
A period during which a large percentage were vaccinated, for starters.

I'm not sure how you think those numbers make any point at all.
[Reply]
Donger 01:34 PM 10-28-2021
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
Donger, do you not realize that 25% in that period doesn't reflect favorably on the vaccine at all? And, of course, this doesn't include all those "mystery" deaths that weren't attributed to Covid.
I realize the population of the UK is highly vaccinated and when you have ~90% vaccinated and the vaccines are about 85% efficacious against death, the math says that the majority of the deaths are going to come from that group, yes.

Meanwhile, the death rates/100,000 are much higher among the unvaccinated than the vaccinated among all age cohorts.

That's favorable, wouldn't you say?
[Reply]
Donger 01:36 PM 10-28-2021
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
A period during which a large percentage were vaccinated, for starters.

I'm not sure how you think those numbers make any point at all.
They make the point that now, 75.2% of the Scotland deaths have been among the unvaccinated since the vaccines began being used.

Pretty simple. Do you not like that number for some reason?
[Reply]
Donger 01:43 PM 10-28-2021
Oregon report update:

https://www.oregon.gov/oha/covid19/D...ase-Report.pdf
[Reply]
RaidersOftheCellar 01:45 PM 10-28-2021
Originally Posted by Donger:
I realize the population of the UK is highly vaccinated and when you have ~90% vaccinated and the vaccines are about 85% efficacious against death, the math says that the majority of the deaths are going to come from that group, yes.

Meanwhile, the death rates/100,000 are much higher among the unvaccinated than the vaccinated among all age cohorts.

That's favorable, wouldn't you say?
You keep saying "are." Do you mean were?

The UK just reached a high vaccination rate a few months ago, but you want to lump in data going back to December. Like I said...desperate.
[Reply]
Donger 01:46 PM 10-28-2021
Unvaccinated Israelis Account for Over 75% of New COVID Cases Over the Past Week

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...eek-1.10326195
[Reply]
New World Order 01:47 PM 10-28-2021
I took the J&J one and I’m sick as a dog ugh
[Reply]
RaidersOftheCellar 01:48 PM 10-28-2021
Originally Posted by Donger:
They make the point that now, 75.2% of the Scotland deaths have been among the unvaccinated since the vaccines began being used.

Pretty simple. Do you not like that number for some reason?
Well, yes, I'd prefer meaningful data.

Although you'll find it hard to provide that given that it's all based on results of a bogus test which was never intended for diagnosis and is being recalled.
[Reply]
Page 1277 of 1626
« First < 27777711771227126712731274127512761277 1278127912801281128713271377 > Last »
Up