Do you agree with Covid passports?

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Mega Star
LV
0
 
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
1,028
Awards
5
Member Since
June 2001
Bill Maher is a comedian! He's not a doctor, he's not a virologist, he's not a scientist. Why should anyone think his opinion is more valid than the overwhelming majority of healthcare professionals and scientists who have been studying covid and treating patients? What next? Should people consult Whoppi Goldberg to get a cancer diagnosis?
They're both comedians who host panel shows that discuss topics such as politics and world events. One would expect them to inform themselves on such issues.

That said, I disagree with many of their takes. However, the fact that even an establishment shill like Bill Maher broke from his party's orthodoxy on vaccines caught my eye.

I don't know who this man is but if he claims to have invented mRNA vaccine Technology then he is not honest. It was developed by the Hungarian biochemist Katalin Kariko. Her story in how she discovered the potential of mRNA and developed the technology is fascinating.
That's possibly an exaggeration on his part. From what I read, development of the mRNA vaccine was a collaborative effort, and Malone was one of hundreds of researchers.

Even if Robert Malone had developed the technology, if he is now arguing against the value of people being vaccinated then he is still out of step with the evidence and the view of the overwhelming majority of scientists and medical professionals.
Malone is a virologist and immunologist. People go to different doctors for a second opinion all the time, so his opinion shouldn't be disregarded simply because it's not mainstream. Not only that, but his take is more nuanced than saying there's no value in being vaccinated. He's against vaccine mandates because he doesn't believe they're ethical. He acknowledges there are risks when taking vaccines, which governments and the FDA acknowledge as well. He said that wasn't the case 9 or 6 months ago, and that medical ethics dictates that people need to be informed of those risks before choosing to get vaccinated or not. I personally cannot argue with what he's saying here.

Far from arguing against the value of vaccines, Malone strongly supports the vaccine being used on people in high risk groups. However, he doesn't believe it's good medical practice to vaccinate everybody indiscriminately because it causes the virus to become vaccine resistant. He gave the example of livestock being excessively vaccinated, and the bugs that attack them become vaccine-resistant as a result. As Malone put it, universal forced vaccination globally causes more harm than good by putting the high risk people in further jeopardy by diluting the effectiveness of the vaccine. I cannot argue with him here either because I previously heard of vaccines losing their potency this way.

Anthony Fauci has been the leading source of information on Coronavirus, and he's been exposed as a master manipulator and liar.

If anybody is largely to blame for the public's mistrust of Covid information, it's without a doubt Fauci:

The Noble Lies of COVID-19​

Do we want public health officials to report facts and uncertainties transparently? Or do we want them to shape information to influence the public to take specific actions?​


In March 2020, as the pandemic began, Anthony Fauci, the chief medical adviser to the president of the United States, explained in a 60 Minutes interview that he felt community use of masks was unnecessary. A few months later, he argued that his statements were not meant to imply that he felt the data to justify the use of cloth masks was insufficient. Rather, he said, had he endorsed mask wearing (of any kind), mass panic would ensue and lead to a surgical and N95 mask shortage among health care workers, who needed the masks more. Yet, emails from a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that Fauci privately gave the same advice—against mask use—suggesting it was not merely his outward stance to the broader public.

Although some have claimed that the evidence changed substantively in the early weeks of March, our assessment of the literature does not concur. We believe the evidence at the time of Fauci’s 60 Minutes interview was largely similar to that in April 2020. Thus, there are two ways to consider Fauci’s statement. One possibility is, as he says, that his initial statement was dishonest but motivated to avoid a run on masks needed by health care workers. The other is that he believed his initial statements were accurate, and he subsequently decided to advocate for cloth masks to divert attention from surgical or N95 masks, or to provide a sense of hope and control to a fearful and anxious public.

Additional evidence suggests that the second interpretation may be more accurate. In a lengthy commentary from July 2020, COVID expert Michael Osterholm wrote in detail about the continued scientific uncertainty regarding masks—even as he expressed support for their widespread public use as one measure among many. But Fauci’s reversal, which came at a time of political polarization, contributed to the evolution of masks from a basic, precautionary mitigation strategy to a badge of political allegiance. President Donald Trump was reluctant to wear a mask and justified his behavior by referring to Fauci’s comments from the 60 Minutes interview. The controversy continued into the presidential debates, with Trump mocking Joe Biden for donning the “biggest mask” he’d ever seen.

One thing is beyond a doubt, however: One of those two statements did not accurately reflect the evidence as Fauci saw it. Such high-profile mixed messages in a short time frame, without substantive new data to justify the change, generated confusion and a backlash from politicians, other experts, and the general public.

When experts or agencies deliver information to the public that they consider possibly or definitively false to further a larger, often well-meaning agenda, they are telling what is called a noble lie. Although the teller’s intentions may be pure—for example, a feeling of urgency that behavioral change is needed among the lay public—the consequences can undermine not only those intentions but also public trust in experts and science. During the first year of COVID-19, leaders were faced with an unknown disease amid a politically sensitive election in the era of social media, and the preconditions for noble lies became especially fertile. Not surprisingly, we witnessed several examples. More than anything, these examples illustrate the destructive potential of such lies.

Later in 2020, Fauci participated in a second noble lie. In December, he explained in a phone interview with then–New York Times reporter Donald McNeil that he had been moving the target estimate for herd immunity based in part on emerging studies. But he also said:

When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, “I can nudge this up a bit,” so I went to 80, 85.
In his own words, he “nudged” his target range for herd immunity to promote vaccine uptake. Even though his comments were made to influence public actions to get more people vaccinated (a noble effort), the central dilemma remains: Do we want public health officials to report facts and uncertainties transparently? Or do we want them to shape information, via nudges, to influence the public to take specific actions? The former fosters an open and honest dialogue with the public to facilitate democratic policymaking. The second subverts the very idea of a democracy and implies that those who set the rules or shape the media narrative are justified in depriving the public of information that they may consider or value differently.

Aside from whether it’s right to tell noble lies in the service of eliciting socially beneficial behavior, there is also the question of efficacy. Experts on infectious diseases are not necessarily experts on social behavior. Even if we accept Fauci’s claim that he downplayed the importance of wearing masks because he didn’t want to unleash a run on masks, we might wonder how he knew that his noble lie would be more effective than simply being honest and explaining to people why it was important to assure an adequate supply of masks for medical workers.

With the arrival of vaccines in early 2021, the potential for such deliberately misleading messages to backfire became more obvious. Key opinion leaders, agencies, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention all articulated some version of “once you are vaccinated, nothing changes,” implying that experts did not know if it was safe to relax precautions and restrictions, such as mask wearing or social distancing, after immunization. But the stance was immediately called into question by others, including epidemiologists, who pointed to the high efficacy of the vaccines and suggested that some, but not all, social distancing measures could be relaxed in certain circumstances. Ultimately, the “no change” message, which may have been intended to discourage mass gatherings or out of a fear that unvaccinated people would lie about their vaccination status, may itself have been harmful: Surveys find that interest in vaccination increases if people are told that it means they can stop masking.

The fourth noble lie from government agencies and/or officials occurred more recently. On June 4, using data from February to March, the agency made the case that hospitalizations were rising in adolescents. It tweeted, “The report shows the importance of #COVID19 vaccination for adolescents.” That tweet spurred a great deal of media attention and concern. It was true that hospitalization rates had risen. However, at the time of the press coverage, hospitalization rates in this age group had already fallen again. Numerous commenters immediately pointed out that the “rise” in hospitalization statistic promoted by the CDC was out of date the moment it was highlighted and raised questions about why the CDC would promote a dated statistic, when the organization had access to up-to-date information.

This obvious error was compounded weeks later during a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The committee met to discuss what we knew and did not know about heart inflammation, or myocarditis, that had been linked to mRNA vaccination, and most notable in young men who received the vaccine. During the course of the meeting, representatives of the CDC showed a model that claimed that vaccination of young adults was preferable to the disease itself.

There were, however, several concerns with this model. First, it used rates of community SARS-CoV-2 spread that again were out of date. By the time of the meeting, the rates were lower, meaning the benefits of vaccination would be reduced, but the harms remain the same. Second, it did not consider the risks separately for boys and girls, who appear to have substantially different risk of myocarditis (much higher in boys). Third, it did not consider any middle ground positions, such as only receiving one dose of the vaccine, which provides much of the benefit with far lower myocarditis risk. Instead, the CDC presented zero or two doses as the only options. Fourth, the modeling did not consider natural immunity—i.e., the vaccine’s risk to kids who already recovered from COVID-19 might be the same, but the benefits far lower (as these children have some natural immunity). Finally, the model did not consider the fact that young adults with preexisting medical conditions and those who are otherwise well might have different risk benefit profiles, as the former account for a disproportionate number of COVID-19 hospitalizations.

Together, these are all information choices made by government agencies and/or officials about vaccination of young adults. Amplifying out-of-date statistics and building a model to support vaccination that has questionable assumptions work to support rapid deployment of two doses of mRNA to all healthy kids aged 12 to 17. That may be the CDC’s policy pursuit, and one we are sympathetic to. However, distorting evidence to achieve this result is a form of a noble lie. Accurately reporting current risks to adolescents, and exploring other dosing possibilities, is part of the unbiased scientific exploration of data.

We worry that vaccine policy among supporters of vaccines is increasingly anchored to the irrational views of those who oppose them—by always pursuing the opposite. Exaggerating the risk of the virus in the moment and failing to explore middle ground positions appear to be the antithesis of the anti-vax movement, which is an extremist effort to refuse vaccination. This seems a reflexive attempt to vaccinate at all costs—by creating fear in the public (despite falling adolescent rates) and pushing the notion that two doses of mRNA at the current dose level or nothing at all are the only two choices—a logical error called the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Noble lies—small untruths—yield unpredictable outcomes. Nietzsche once wrote, “Not that you lied to me, but that I no longer believe you, has shaken me.” Public health messaging is predicated on trust, which overcomes the enormous complexity of the scientific literature, creating an opportunity to communicate initiatives effectively. Still, violation of this trust renders the communication unreliable. When trust is shattered, messaging is no longer clear and straightforward, and instead results in the audience trying to reverse-engineer the statement based on their view of the speaker’s intent. Simply put, noble lies can rob confidence from the public, leading to confusion, a loss of credibility, conspiracy theories, and obfuscated policy.

Noble lies are a trap. We cannot predict the public’s behavior, and loss of trust is devastating. The general population is far too skeptical to blindly follow the advice of experts, and far too intelligent to be easily duped.

Source: https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.html
 
Last edited:

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Mega Star
LV
0
 
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
1,028
Awards
5
Member Since
June 2001
I agree with you that people should have the choice whether or not they want to be vaccinated but their choice has consequences. If someone isn't vaccinated why do they demand to mix with people they could pass covid-19 on to? It's like if someone is HIV positive and they choose not to put PrEp into their bodies and they demand being able to have unprotected sex with future partners without telling them of their status. Surely in both cases the responsible thing is to consider the impact their choice will have on others?
Yes, but you're not required to show a potential sexual partner proof you don't have HIV. That risk always exists, and you have to hope your partner is honest and decent.

As for Covid, the vaccine isn't 100% effective, and is beneficial for certain groups of people far more than others. If Robert Malone is to be believed, the vaccinated have the potential to become super spreaders because they still have the ability to pass the virus on to others, despite an increased likelihood of being a-symptomatic. People should take precautions to protect themselves as much as possible if they're worried. Get vaccinated, wear masks, social distance, but the risk of getting Covid will always be present.
Governments should be changing their laws to waive patents for covid vaccines for as long as the pandemic exists so cheap generic versions of the vaccines can be made. Governments should also be sendng some of their vaccine stockpiles to poorer countries. Recently, the UK government threw away 600,000 vaccine doses because they expired when they could hasn't sent them to other countries before it was too late. Yes, pharmaceutical companies need to put lives before profits but governments should be forcing then to do so.
I agree with you completely here.
 

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Mega Star
LV
0
 
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
1,028
Awards
5
Member Since
June 2001
There is simply nothing that compares with the Holocaust, nothing. And for that instagrammer to suggest it's even remotely similar is disgusting.
I hope you don't think I was trying to imply that it was a fair or rational comparison. As I said, it was extreme because the unvaccinated aren't being executed.

I obviously have my own issues with vaccine mandates and passports, but I think it's ridiculous when people disingenuously invoke the Holocaust to make their point.
 

Angela Channing

World Cup of Soaps Moderator
LV
5
 
Messages
10,798
Reaction score
15,894
Awards
26
Member Since
1999
If Robert Malone is to be believed, the vaccinated have the potential to become super spreaders because they still have the ability to pass the virus on to others, despite an increased likelihood of being a-symptomatic.
That charlatan is wrong about being the person who developed the mRNA technology for use in vaccines and he's wrong about this too. He can have an opinion but his is not fact based. Vaccinated individuals are significantly less likely to pass the virus on because their increased immune response to covid means they will have a lower viral load in their bodies should they become infected. This is basic science and if he had a background in immunology and vaccine therapy he would know this.

I agree with you completely here.
Hallelujah, we finally agree on something!
 
Last edited:

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Mega Star
LV
0
 
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
1,028
Awards
5
Member Since
June 2001
That charlatan is wrong about being the person who developed the mRNA technology for use in vaccines and he's wrong about this too.
It's more nuanced than that:

In late 1987, Robert Malone performed a landmark experiment. He mixed strands of messenger RNA with droplets of fat, to create a kind of molecular stew. Human cells bathed in this genetic gumbo absorbed the mRNA, and began producing proteins from it.

Realizing that this discovery might have far-reaching potential in medicine, Malone, a graduate student at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, later jotted down some notes, which he signed and dated. If cells could create proteins from mRNA delivered into them, he wrote on 11 January 1988, it might be possible to “treat RNA as a drug”. Another member of the Salk lab signed the notes, too, for posterity. Later that year, Malone’s experiments showed that frog embryos absorbed such mRNA. It was the first time anyone had used fatty droplets to ease mRNA’s passage into a living organism.

Those experiments were a stepping stone towards two of the most important and profitable vaccines in history: the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines given to hundreds of millions of people around the world. Global sales of these are expected to top US$50 billion in 2021 alone.

But the path to success was not direct. For many years after Malone’s experiments, which themselves had drawn on the work of other researchers, mRNA was seen as too unstable and expensive to be used as a drug or a vaccine. Dozens of academic labs and companies worked on the idea, struggling with finding the right formula of fats and nucleic acids — the building blocks of mRNA vaccines.

Today’s mRNA jabs have innovations that were invented years after Malone’s time in the lab, including chemically modified RNA and different types of fat bubble to ferry them into cells (see ‘Inside an mRNA COVID vaccine’). Still, Malone, who calls himself the “inventor of mRNA vaccines”, thinks his work hasn’t been given enough credit. “I’ve been written out of history,” he told Nature.

You can read the full article here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w

He can have an opinion but his is not fact based. Vaccinated individuals are significantly less likely to pass the virus on because their increased immune response to covid means they will have a lower viral load in their bodies should they become infected. This is basic science and if he had a background in immunology and vaccine therapy he would know this.
"Less likely" means it's still possible to pass it on, even though we had Joe Biden saying "People who are vaccinated for the coronavirus cannot spread it to you."

Is that another "noble lie" like Fauci likes to tell? Even PolitiFact had to admit that Biden "Overstates how well vaccines prevent person-to-person virus spread.

What Malone's saying is fact based and has merit. According to the CDC:
  • Vaccine breakthrough infections are expected. COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing most infections. However, like other vaccines, they are not 100% effective.
  • Fully vaccinated people with a vaccine breakthrough infection are less likely to develop serious illness than those who are unvaccinated and get COVID-19.
  • Even when fully vaccinated people develop symptoms, they tend to be less severe symptoms than in unvaccinated people. This means they are much less likely to be hospitalized or die than people who are not vaccinated.
  • People who get vaccine breakthrough infections can be contagious.
And this is exactly what Malone was saying. The vaccinated are less likely to become ill and often have no symptoms if they develop a breakthrough infection. That's a problem because they can still unknowingly pass the virus on to others. Thus, a person can show proof of vaccination, and still infect people. Less likely does not mean impossible.

Malone concluded that we can't vaccinate our way out of this. Biden's former director of Covid response Andy Slavitt said the virus will likely keep mutating, which will make it contagious enough that everyone will get it. CDC director Rochelle Walensky echoed his sentiments, saying "The largest concern that we in public health and science are worried about is that the virus becomes a very transmissible virus that has the potential to evade our vaccines in terms of how it protects us from severe disease and death."

Malone also discussed the possibility that big pharma's "undue influence" on public health decisions is playing a role in vaccine mandates, which I wouldn't rule out.

Hallelujah, we finally agree on something!
But like the pandemic, it only happens once in a lifetime! ;)
 
Last edited:

Angela Channing

World Cup of Soaps Moderator
LV
5
 
Messages
10,798
Reaction score
15,894
Awards
26
Member Since
1999
It's more nuanced than that:

In late 1987, Robert Malone performed a landmark experiment. He mixed strands of messenger RNA with droplets of fat, to create a kind of molecular stew. Human cells bathed in this genetic gumbo absorbed the mRNA, and began producing proteins from it.

Realizing that this discovery might have far-reaching potential in medicine, Malone, a graduate student at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, later jotted down some notes, which he signed and dated. If cells could create proteins from mRNA delivered into them, he wrote on 11 January 1988, it might be possible to “treat RNA as a drug”. Another member of the Salk lab signed the notes, too, for posterity. Later that year, Malone’s experiments showed that frog embryos absorbed such mRNA. It was the first time anyone had used fatty droplets to ease mRNA’s passage into a living organism.

Those experiments were a stepping stone towards two of the most important and profitable vaccines in history: the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines given to hundreds of millions of people around the world. Global sales of these are expected to top US$50 billion in 2021 alone.

But the path to success was not direct. For many years after Malone’s experiments, which themselves had drawn on the work of other researchers, mRNA was seen as too unstable and expensive to be used as a drug or a vaccine. Dozens of academic labs and companies worked on the idea, struggling with finding the right formula of fats and nucleic acids — the building blocks of mRNA vaccines.

Today’s mRNA jabs have innovations that were invented years after Malone’s time in the lab, including chemically modified RNA and different types of fat bubble to ferry them into cells (see ‘Inside an mRNA COVID vaccine’). Still, Malone, who calls himself the “inventor of mRNA vaccines”, thinks his work hasn’t been given enough credit. “I’ve been written out of history,” he told Nature.

You can read the full article here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w
Even that article says his experiments drew on work of other researchers so his work wasn't original. Also, there is no mention of whether his work was published nor whether it was peer reviewed which is why he can't be credited for the work described. The article says he calls himself the inventor of mRNA however no one else does. I call myself the world's greatest marathon runner however, no one else does.

"Less likely" means it's still possible to pass it on, even though we had Joe Biden saying "People who are vaccinated for the coronavirus cannot spread it to you."

Is that another "noble lie" like Fauci likes to tell? Even PolitiFact had to admit that Biden "Overstates how well vaccines prevent person-to-person virus spread.
None of the vaccines ever claimed to be 100% effective so it was always acknowledged that a very small percentage of vaccinated people will pass transmit the virus on to other people. If they have some immune response, they will have a smaller viral load and so the will be less capable of infecting anyone they come into contact with.

What Malone's saying is fact based and has merit. According to the CDC:
  • Vaccine breakthrough infections are expected. COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing most infections. However, like other vaccines, they are not 100% effective.
  • Fully vaccinated people with a vaccine breakthrough infection are less likely to develop serious illness than those who are unvaccinated and get COVID-19.
  • Even when fully vaccinated people develop symptoms, they tend to be less severe symptoms than in unvaccinated people. This means they are much less likely to be hospitalized or die than people who are not vaccinated.
  • People who get vaccine breakthrough infections can be contagious.
This is all correct, wow, we agree again!

And this is exactly what Malone was saying. The vaccinated are less likely to become ill and often have no symptoms if they develop a breakthrough infection. That's a problem because they can still unknowingly pass the virus on to others. Thus, a person can show proof of vaccination, and still infect people. Less likely does not mean impossible.

Malone concluded that we can't vaccinate our way out of this. Biden's former director of Covid response Andy Slavitt said the virus will likely keep mutating, which will make it contagious enough that everyone will get it. CDC director Rochelle Walensky echoed his sentiments, saying "The largest concern that we in public health and science are worried about is that the virus becomes a very transmissible virus that has the potential to evade our vaccines in terms of how it protects us from severe disease and death."
It's wrong to look at it in absolute terms because it should be viewed relative to those who have not been vaccinated. If I'm in a room full of people who have not been vaccinated, the chance of me catching covid-19 from one of them is exponentially higher than if I was in a room full of vaccinated people. The fact that Mr Malone can't see that suggests he's not a credible scientist.

One of the important reasons for getting as many people as possible vaccinated is also that it will reduce the opportunities for mutations to form. A year ago the WHO were investigating many mutations of concerns but as the number of people vaccinated has increased the number of mutations of concern has fallen significantly. That said, vaccination alone will not end the pandemic, we still need to social distance and wear masks in public indoor spaces.
 

Seaviewer

Telly Talk Mega Star
LV
2
 
Messages
3,429
Reaction score
5,098
Awards
10
Location
Australia
Member Since
14 September 2001
the idea that people should be coerced into having a medical procedure performed on them doesn't sit well with me.
I'll admit it doesn't sit well with me either. Our governments are being somewhat disingenuous in maintaining that they are not making the vaccine compulsory while at the same time making it a requirement for more and more occupations and activities. The practical difference between compulsory and mandated escapes me but it's clear that the main concern is to avoid overwhelming the health system rather than the well-being of any individual.

I honestly believe issues such as vaccine mandates and passports are a test to see how easily people are willing to roll over for a sense of safety.
Intentionally or just effectively?
 

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Mega Star
LV
0
 
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
1,028
Awards
5
Member Since
June 2001
Even that article says his experiments drew on work of other researchers so his work wasn't original.
It also referred to his mixing of messenger RNA and fat as a "legendary experiment," and that his experiments on frog embryos "was the first time anyone had used fatty droplets to ease mRNA’s passage into a living organism." Those experiments were called "stepping stones" to today's Covid-19 vaccine, so his contribution is noteworthy.
Also, there is no mention of whether his work was published nor whether it was peer reviewed which is why he can't be credited for the work described.
According to an article in The Atlantic, "He was the first author on a 1989 paper demonstrating how RNA could be delivered into cells using lipids, which are basically tiny globules of fat, and a co-author on a 1990 Science paper showing that if you inject pure RNA or DNA into mouse muscle cells, it can lead to the transcription of new proteins."
The article says he calls himself the inventor of mRNA however no one else does. I call myself the world's greatest marathon runner however, no one else does.
This seems to be the biggest point of contention when it comes to Malone. His experiments were groundbreaking, but they did rely on the work of researchers before him. Malone claims he hasn't been given the credit he deserves, and he's accused Katalin Karikó of "feeding reporters bogus information and inflating her own accomplishments." In contrast, Karikó does come across much more humble than Malone. She says she doesn't refer to herself as the inventor of mRNA vaccines, and acknowledges “many many scientists” contributed to their success. Karikó wrote Malone "I have never claimed more than discovering a way to make RNA less inflammatory."

Malone does seem somewhat arrogant, and he isn't solely responsible for the mRNA vaccine. That said, his contribution was significant.
It's wrong to look at it in absolute terms because it should be viewed relative to those who have not been vaccinated. If I'm in a room full of people who have not been vaccinated, the chance of me catching covid-19 from one of them is exponentially higher than if I was in a room full of vaccinated people. The fact that Mr Malone can't see that suggests he's not a credible scientist.
I think he does understand that, but he's trying to counter the argument some government officials have made regarding the vaccine. At one point, Joe Biden literally said that the vaccine is 100% effective at stopping the spread of the virus. It goes back to the article I posted from Slate that referred to the so-called "noble lies" of Covid-19, which were intended to get people to mask up and get vaccinated. Rather than be manipulated or coerced into taking the vaccine, people should have all of the facts first.

To his credit, Malone is most certainly not anti-vax. The Atlantic article I referenced to accuses Malone of "undermining" the vaccine, even though they admit his view is nuanced and not extreme like actual anti-vaxxers. Regarding Malone's views on the vaccine, The Atlantic article states "His objections to the Pfizer and Moderna shots have to do mostly with their expedited approval process and with the government’s system for tracking adverse reactions. Speaking as a doctor, he would probably recommend their use only for those at highest risk from COVID-19. Everyone else should be wary, he told me, and those under 18 should be excluded entirely. (A June 23 statement from more than a dozen public-health organizations and agencies strongly encouraged all eligible people 12 and older to get vaccinated, because the benefits 'far outweigh any harm.') Malone is also frustrated that, as he sees it, complaints about side effects are being ignored or censored in the nationwide push to increase vaccination rates."

One can debate how credible Malone is, but I respect a healthy dose of skepticism. The government, the media, and big pharma are notorious propaganda pushers.
 
Last edited:

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Mega Star
LV
0
 
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
1,028
Awards
5
Member Since
June 2001
I'll admit it doesn't sit well with me either. Our governments are being somewhat disingenuous in maintaining that they are not making the vaccine compulsory while at the same time making it a requirement for more and more occupations and activities. The practical difference between compulsory and mandated escapes me but it's clear that the main concern is to avoid overwhelming the health system rather than the well-being of any individual.
That sums it up nicely.
Intentionally or just effectively?
Both.

It's intentional because the ruling class wants that control. Comply and get the jab, or lose your job and access to public spaces. So now the elites get to play doctor.

As far as effectively goes, people often base their decisions off of fear because they allow themselves to be manipulated by the media. This happens with politics all the time.

This may sound hypocritical coming from me since I'm fully vaccinated, but I made that decision on the advice of my doctor. Finger wagging and mandates didn't play a part.
 
Last edited:

Angela Channing

World Cup of Soaps Moderator
LV
5
 
Messages
10,798
Reaction score
15,894
Awards
26
Member Since
1999
It also referred to his mixing of messenger RNA and fat as a "legendary experiment," and that his experiments on frog embryos "was the first time anyone had used fatty droplets to ease mRNA’s passage into a living organism." Those experiments were called "stepping stones" to today's Covid-19 vaccine, so his contribution is noteworthy.

According to an article in The Atlantic, "He was the first author on a 1989 paper demonstrating how RNA could be delivered into cells using lipids, which are basically tiny globules of fat, and a co-author on a 1990 Science paper showing that if you inject pure RNA or DNA into mouse muscle cells, it can lead to the transcription of new proteins."

This seems to be the biggest point of contention when it comes to Malone. His experiments were groundbreaking, but they did rely on the work of researchers before him. Malone claims he hasn't been given the credit he deserves, and he's accused Katalin Karikó of "feeding reporters bogus information and inflating her own accomplishments." In contrast, Karikó does come across much more humble than Malone. She says she doesn't refer to herself as the inventor of mRNA vaccines, and acknowledges “many many scientists” contributed to their success. Karikó wrote Malone "I have never claimed more than discovering a way to make RNA less inflammatory."

Malone does seem somewhat arrogant, and he isn't solely responsible for the mRNA vaccine. That said, his contribution was significant.

I think he does understand that, but he's trying to counter the argument some government officials have made regarding the vaccine. At one point, Joe Biden literally said that the vaccine is 100% effective at stopping the spread of the virus. It goes back to the article I posted from Slate that referred to the so-called "noble lies" of Covid-19, which were intended to get people to mask up and get vaccinated. Rather than be manipulated or coerced into taking the vaccine, people should have all of the facts first.

To his credit, Malone is most certainly not anti-vax. The Atlantic article I referenced to accuses Malone of "undermining" the vaccine, even though they admit his view is nuanced and not extreme like actual anti-vaxxers. Regarding Malone's views on the vaccine, The Atlantic article states "His objections to the Pfizer and Moderna shots have to do mostly with their expedited approval process and with the government’s system for tracking adverse reactions. Speaking as a doctor, he would probably recommend their use only for those at highest risk from COVID-19. Everyone else should be wary, he told me, and those under 18 should be excluded entirely. (A June 23 statement from more than a dozen public-health organizations and agencies strongly encouraged all eligible people 12 and older to get vaccinated, because the benefits 'far outweigh any harm.') Malone is also frustrated that, as he sees it, complaints about side effects are being ignored or censored in the nationwide push to increase vaccination rates."

One can debate how credible Malone is, but I respect a healthy dose of skepticism. The government, the media, and big pharma are notorious propaganda pushers.
I think Malone is exaggerating his role in the development of mRNA vaccines to give him more credibility. He is an outlier because the overwhelming majority of the scientific and medical community believe the vaccines are safe. The data also overwhelmingly shows they vaccines are safe. If he's concerned that the approval process of the vaccines were rushed he can't have reviewed the data and read the relevant papers because no corners were cut. Normally, the different stages in the licencing process are done sequentially but due to the urgency of the pandemic things were done in parallel but none of the stages were skipped. I've just finished reading the book Vaxxers by the Oxford University scientists who developed the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine and they explain is great detail the process and it was thorough and complete. Malone is also wrong to say the side effects are being ignored, they were been logged and reviewed during the development process and they are still being monitored.

Frank, although we often disagree I appreciate your willingness to continue engage with me. I have far more respect for you than those who lob grenades into a discussion and then run away and refuse to defend their comments when challenged. However, I still think you are wrong on this but I'm glad you have been vaccinated.
 

Frank Underwood

Telly Talk Mega Star
LV
0
 
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
1,028
Awards
5
Member Since
June 2001
I think Malone is exaggerating his role in the development of mRNA vaccines to give him more credibility. He is an outlier because the overwhelming majority of the scientific and medical community believe the vaccines are safe. The data also overwhelmingly shows they vaccines are safe. If he's concerned that the approval process of the vaccines were rushed he can't have reviewed the data and read the relevant papers because no corners were cut. Normally, the different stages in the licencing process are done sequentially but due to the urgency of the pandemic things were done in parallel but none of the stages were skipped. I've just finished reading the book Vaxxers by the Oxford University scientists who developed the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine and they explain is great detail the process and it was thorough and complete. Malone is also wrong to say the side effects are being ignored, they were been logged and reviewed during the development process and they are still being monitored.
I hope for the sake of the vaccinated that all of that is true. I experienced mild symptoms shortly after the jab (chills, aches, coughing), but they thankfully weren't long lasting.

I still can't help but feel we can only have faith that what we're being told is true because agendas are involved, be it mass vaccination goals or profits.


Frank, although we often disagree I appreciate your willingness to continue engage with me. I have far more respect for you than those who lob grenades into a discussion and then run away and refuse to defend their comments when challenged. However, I still think you are wrong on this but I'm glad you have been vaccinated.
Thanks, I respect you for engaging me as well. I appreciate a good, constructive debate, and it's nice to see we have some common ground on a few points too.
 

Sarah

Super Moderator
Staff Member
Top Poster Of Month
LV
3
 
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
11,188
Awards
13
Location
Ireland (North)
Member Since
1998
Favourite Movie
Silence of the Lambs
Our covid rate in Northern Ireland is continuing to climb, which again is another reason why I don't understand why they haven't introduced border checks for people flying in and out of Dublin in the south. People are free to travel from red zones and enter Ireland and do whatever they want.
 

Angela Channing

World Cup of Soaps Moderator
LV
5
 
Messages
10,798
Reaction score
15,894
Awards
26
Member Since
1999
I hope for the sake of the vaccinated that all of that is true. I experienced mild symptoms shortly after the jab (chills, aches, coughing), but they thankfully weren't long lasting.

I still can't help but feel we can only have faith that what we're being told is true because agendas are involved, be it mass vaccination goals or profits.
I initially had reservations about being vaccinated because I originally had concerns about its safety but 2 things changed my mind: understanding that the vaccines had gone through the usual safety and efficacy test and by the time I it came around for me to be vaccinated millions of people worldwide had been vaccinated with no lasting side effects. The history of vaccines show that side effects normally show up in the first days or weeks after vaccination so I now have no concerns about its safety. Nothing that you put into your body is 100% safe for 100% of people, not even water, but the real world data indicates that the vaccines are very safe so I have no hesitation in encouraging everyone to get vaccinated especially as I know 6 people who have lost a parent or partner to Covid.
 

Emelee

Telly Talk Champion
LV
2
 
Messages
4,592
Reaction score
7,188
Awards
10
Location
Sweden
Sweden is implementing Covid passports starting December 1st for gatherings with 100 people or more. Concerts, sporting events and restaurants with capacity for 100+ people are affected.

I've got my passport ready. I don't foresee much objection to this in Sweden. Most political parties, if not all, support this. 82,2% of Swedes ages 16 and up have recieved 2 doses. We will all soon get a 3rd dose, the elderly have already gotten it. The non-vaccinated haven't raised their voices against the passports, at least not so much that I've heard of it.
 

Seaviewer

Telly Talk Mega Star
LV
2
 
Messages
3,429
Reaction score
5,098
Awards
10
Location
Australia
Member Since
14 September 2001
It's more severe here. The unvaccinated are not allowed into "non-essential" retail stores and there have been reports of abuse of shop owners and staff who are obliged by the government to enforce it.
 

Karin Schill

Moderator
Staff Member
LV
2
 
Messages
6,098
Reaction score
10,212
Awards
12
Location
Sweden
Member Since
September 2004
Sweden is implementing Covid passports starting December 1st for gatherings with 100 people or more. Concerts, sporting events and restaurants with capacity for 100+ people are affected.

I've got my passport ready. I don't foresee much objection to this in Sweden. Most political parties, if not all, support this. 82,2% of Swedes ages 16 and up have recieved 2 doses. We will all soon get a 3rd dose, the elderly have already gotten it. The non-vaccinated haven't raised their voices against the passports, at least not so much that I've heard of it.

My only objection to the Covid passports is that they are limited to three months. This means that my Covid passport expires this month and I have to order a new one right before the restrictions starts to apply. It is a bit annoying. So I think it would have been better if the Covid passports would have been valid for 6 months.
 

Emelee

Telly Talk Champion
LV
2
 
Messages
4,592
Reaction score
7,188
Awards
10
Location
Sweden
My only objection to the Covid passports is that they are limited to three months. This means that my Covid passport expires this month and I have to order a new one right before the restrictions starts to apply. It is a bit annoying. So I think it would have been better if the Covid passports would have been valid for 6 months.

Do you have Kivra? Takes like 10 seconds to get the passport.
 

Karin Schill

Moderator
Staff Member
LV
2
 
Messages
6,098
Reaction score
10,212
Awards
12
Location
Sweden
Member Since
September 2004
No I don't have Kivra. My sister had to get that for work and had nothing but trouble with it so I don't want that digital mail box either. I prefer to get my mail from the tax office etc. delivered with the regular mail.
 

Emelee

Telly Talk Champion
LV
2
 
Messages
4,592
Reaction score
7,188
Awards
10
Location
Sweden
No I don't have Kivra. My sister had to get that for work and had nothing but trouble with it so I don't want that digital mail box either. I prefer to get my mail from the tax office etc. delivered with the regular mail.

So you have faith in PostNord? ;)
I prefer only getting fun things in my regular mail. No bills, no authority papers, no adverts.
 
Top