I'm in Pfizer's COVID vaccine trial, ask me anything.

[lhamilton1807]

Free speech can’t be (i.e. isn’t supposed to be) curtailed by the government. Private parties have always been able to curb speech. We have moderators on this forum that do just that and it’s perfectly legal and appropriate. Sorry if you misunderstood how that worked. Free speech doesn’t mean you can post whatever you want whenever and wherever you want. A lot of companies, like Google, have decided it’s in the public’s best interest to not have misinformation spread on their sites. Not to say I agree with their policies on all things - but Google is not a government agency and can set its own usage policies. Doesn’t mean you can’t post it or find anti-Faucci articles anywhere, it means you Google might not spit it out when you search for it.

[sniper97]

I got the 2 Moderna shots just because I want to go places and do things. first shot sucked, 2 shot really fed me up...Chills , Headaches , loss of apatite and so on,,,, I got the card under duress ... I was told to have my Vax card for a flight I'm taking ... Booster shots next????

Like the cartoon! Lol

[Fubarius]

Any Doctor who disagrees with Fauci, their post is removed..

Post? Not research paper? Not thesis? Not article in a scientific journal?

Post. Hmmm....

As in facebook? Maybe twiiter? Or worse, one of the "alternatives"?

Yeah. Those "posts" are all lies. With out exception.

First rule of social media. Everything shared is a lie. Scrolling through a feed isn't research. "Interesting" videos on youtube isn't research. Just more lies. The truth is boring, or depressing. But lies trigger emotion, make you feel angry, or vindicated, or special. So lies spread. No one gets a million views by simply stating the truth.

[sniper97]

In science, if one makes an affirmative claim, it is that party’s responsibility to provide support for that claim, rather than say “I’m right until and unless you definitively prove me wrong”. So if these vaccines are actually as dangerous as you insinuate, show. the. data. It’s that simple. Show how the rate of severe side effects are disproportionate to other types of vaccines, or disproportionate to the risk the vaccines mitigate. If you can’t do that, with hard data in published studies or public health agencies (like, put the numbers in your post and provide the source), then nobody has any reason to take seriously the notion that the costs outweigh the benefits.

And one last word on “early treatment”: Treatment will not end the pandemic. Vaccines, and only vaccines, will.

There are now articles on how Covid will last 7 yrs, Spanish Flu didn't last that long.

Also, why get a boster vs. an anti-body test.

[lhamilton1807]

Getting the vaccine was your choice, not an enforcement or a decision made at gunpoint. Come on 😂

The potential (temporary) side effects were all disclosed to you before getting the shot I’m sure. They’ve been publicly plastered everywhere for months. Booster shots are a consideration if the virus is allowed to spread for long enough that it mutates to the point the current vaccines aren’t effective anymore. That ISN’T the case right now - the three vaccines available on the US are highly effective at dealing with the Delta variant. How have you missed all of this? Oh wait…

[sniper97]

Just to be clear, from reading you posts, you believe that early treatment was repressed in order to allow for emergency use authorization to be granted so new biotech companies with little experience can inject us with unproven material. Am I misrepresenting this in any way?

I feel like I have proven that early treatment options are still ignored today. The reason why is a bigger question. Emergency use is only allowed when there are not treatments. The prior examples by the OP were only phase 1.

With cause and effect, I am not 100% sure of the reason why. I have ideas, hopefully not that sinister.

How about untested material?

[sniper97]

I felt that way years ago. Then I started reading more broadly in the US Media and found a vast array of opinions, reporting styles, editorials, and coverage options and angles. The US reporting agencies are mostly privately funded (NPR and VoA are two exceptions) but they’re both quite free to (and do in fact) criticize US government agents, policies, and elected officials across the board. They aren’t perfect and certainly come with bias. All human-generated information will have some bias at least. I learned to move from complaining about bias to understanding there’s no way to get information except through biased sources and to understand the bias in the reporting as I read it. Instead I focus more on whether the reporting uses credible sources and whether those sources are cited. I also look for opinions mixed in with (or in place of) facts. Most media platforms across the spectrum mix opinion shows and news reporting, and audiences seem to take both as factual reporting. Doesn’t mean they’re controlled - it means we’re not very good at telling the difference.

Any Doctor who disagrees with Fauci, their post is removed. I feel like free speech is threatened. Watching an interesting video, I'll share once I am finished.

[Chappy]

Nothing nefarious

Just to be clear, from reading you posts, you believe that early treatment was repressed in order to allow for emergency use authorization to be granted so new biotech companies with little experience can inject us with unproven material. Am I misrepresenting this in any way?

[sniper97]

For better or worse the pharma industry and the auto industry are completely different beasts, I could probably argue quite a bit for reform on both
But telsa seems a bit farther along on the electric car then the big 3.

After how many years and how many recalls. If Johnson and Johnson can't get sunscreen right...

Also Musk founded and sold 2 successfully companies prior to Tesla, PayPal is one.

[lhamilton1807]

We all known US media is controlled.

I felt that way years ago. Then I started reading more broadly in the US Media and found a vast array of opinions, reporting styles, editorials, and coverage options and angles. The US reporting agencies are mostly privately funded (NPR and VoA are two exceptions) but they’re both quite free to (and do in fact) criticize US government agents, policies, and elected officials across the board. They aren’t perfect and certainly come with bias. All human-generated information will have some bias at least. I learned to move from complaining about bias to understanding there’s no way to get information except through biased sources and to understand the bias in the reporting as I read it. Instead I focus more on whether the reporting uses credible sources and whether those sources are cited. I also look for opinions mixed in with (or in place of) facts. Most media platforms across the spectrum mix opinion shows and news reporting, and audiences seem to take both as factual reporting. Doesn’t mean they’re controlled - it means we’re not very good at telling the difference.

[woouulf]

I got the 2 Moderna shots just because I want to go places and do things. first shot sucked, 2 shot really fed me up...Chills , Headaches , loss of apatite and so on,,,, I got the card under duress ... I was told to have my Vax card for a flight I'm taking ... Booster shots next????

[Diomedes]

In science, if one makes an affirmative claim, it is that party’s responsibility to provide support for that claim, rather than say “I’m right until and unless you definitively prove me wrong”. So if these vaccines are actually as dangerous as you insinuate, show. the. data. It’s that simple. Show how the rate of severe side effects are disproportionate to other types of vaccines, or disproportionate to the risk the vaccines mitigate. If you can’t do that, with hard data in published studies or public health agencies (like, put the numbers in your post and provide the source), then nobody has any reason to take seriously the notion that the costs outweigh the benefits.

And one last word on “early treatment”: Treatment will not end the pandemic. Vaccines, and only vaccines, will.

[Chappy]

For better or worse the pharma industry and the auto industry are completely different beasts, I could probably argue quite a bit for reform on both
But telsa seems a bit farther along on the electric car then the big 3.

[sniper97]

What is your point with this? Is this intended to be something nefarious? And what do you mean by “running the show?” They were asked to develop vaccines at “warp speed” and they did.
Fun fact Moderna is ModeRNA so yeah the first rna vaccine was their first product, funny that.

2 fairly new drug companies, 1st drug in their pipeline. My point is they lack a history of making drugs. Lack experience.

If you go out and buy a car, do you do research? Read reviews? Brand new technology. The major drug companies have no mRNA drugs in their pipelines. Both partnered with established drug companies.

Moderna had only existed since 2010 and this is their 1st drug.

Nothing nefarious

[Chappy]

More fun facts: out of 12 potential vaccines, only 2 are mRNA. This is Moderna's 1st and only "drug", Moderna was founded in 2010.

What is your point with this? Is this intended to be something nefarious? And what do you mean by “running the show?” They were asked to develop vaccines at “warp speed” and they did.
Fun fact Moderna is ModeRNA so yeah the first rna vaccine was their first product, funny that.