|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
why? the result is Trump starts spouting Russian talking points and saying Ukraine should just give up their territory.
We've seen it a dozen times, Trump is easily influenced by whoever talked to him last and Putin has been playing him like a fiddle from the start.
|
United States44190 Posts
On August 10 2025 06:42 Gorsameth wrote:why? the result is Trump starts spouting Russian talking points and saying Ukraine should just give up their territory. We've seen it a dozen times, Trump is easily influenced by whoever talked to him last and Putin has been playing him like a fiddle from the start.
And not for a lasting peace, they should abandon all their most fortified positions and pull back to open fields in exchange for a ceasefire and a promise of discussions. The idea is that Putin will be much less motivated to keep pushing into Ukraine once they've abandoned their bunker complexes.
|
What kind of beef does Trump exactly have with Germany having public health insurance ?
Saw the headline somewhere and went wtf for a moment there.
|
On August 10 2025 08:28 Vivax wrote:
What kind of beef does Trump exactly have with Germany having public health insurance ?
Saw the headline somewhere and went wtf for a moment there.
Its because he and the republicans want to make the world a worse place.
Literally thats it. He wants to break shit and make people suffer, same for the people that work for him. Nothing hes doing has the intention of improving the lives of people, its actually deliberatly the opposite.
|
On August 10 2025 04:35 Introvert wrote:
You guys don't want neutrality. You think you're right and you want that acted upon!
This pretty much sums it up.
On another note:
https://x.com/PeteHegseth/status/1953626931234054558
Secretary of Defence reposted this. I can tell you guys now, that this will be fastest growing church in US.
|
On August 10 2025 09:23 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 04:35 Introvert wrote:
You guys don't want neutrality. You think you're right and you want that acted upon! This pretty much sums it up. On another note: https://x.com/PeteHegseth/status/1953626931234054558Secretary of Defence reposted this. I can tell you guys now, that this will be fastest growing church in US.
Gotta love the guys advocating for voting by household and men casting the vote as head of household, no women voting.
These people are scum. Its sad they are infiltrating our government. Even introvert and oblade have to think this would be a horrendous idea.
|
On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2025 23:35 oBlade wrote:On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:On August 08 2025 22:06 oBlade wrote:On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
Also my uncle is alive because he got an mrna shot to treat his cancer. That is fantastic. I'm glad your uncle is alive. Is it the only treatment he got? Is he the only one that got it? Because obviously the US government can't afford $500 million per life saved, so please expand the anecdote or its significance. On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
The idea that curing cancer going to profitable to pharma companies is silly. What is this sentence supposed to mean? Are you saying pharma companies are intentionally keeping people sick with cancer to get more money? Or curing cancer would be a loss for them? I don't see how any company that "cured" cancer wouldn't be worth over a trillion dollars overnight. On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
The misconception that research dollars invested should be diverted to only known technologies and science is very ignorant and not how any of this works. This is a great rebuttal to something I haven't seen argued. It is a mistake to presuppose that the word "research" necessitates any government anything whatsoever. The research isn't banned, is it? If it's so promising, why does it need public dollars? If it's such a long shot, why would it deserve public dollars? Stuck on level 1 if this can't be answered. Nor is mRNA unknown anyway. Billions of doses worldwide. Should we fund it just because it'd be really nice if it worked out? There are thousands of proposed treatments for everything that have fallen by the wayside. Okay? Cost benefit. For example, it'd be really great if the world had a cheap source of nearly unlimited clean energy. It just so happens I'm working on it, it's called cold fusion. Do I deserve $10 billion in taxpayer funds, maybe not. Yeah its the only one he got. Why would you think that he was the only one who would receive the treatment? Do you think that there wouldn't be other lives saved through the advancement of mrna shots? My uncle isn't rich or exceptional, but he was able to get a genetically tailored shot of tuberculosis that killed his cancer cells really well. If the funding didn't go through he would have to get radiation therapty and other worse treatments. Curing cancer through one shot is less profitable than a series of treatments. Yes, it would be less profitable to cure cancer quickly instead of slowly over time. Why would a company be worth trillions of dollars if it only sells a cheap cure to a problem? If the government funds this research instead of a Pharma company that means that the patent can be used for the public good so we can have that cheap cure instead of an expensive series of treatments. You have assumed for some reason that the one company with the competitive advantage of a cancer cure that was probably expensive to research would sell it cheap, and also that the cure is one shot. I have no idea why you have assumed that. Your uncle's targeted therapy was probably not cheap, and it's not mass producible because his cancer and everyone's cancer are different. If a company had a "cure" for cancer, either one-size or individually tailored, they would profit off it. Either could be more expensive than the other, but either way they would drive down the cost of competing alternative treatments. Cancer sees no respite from this by the way as it's mRNA programs for respiratory viruses that are being phased out. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Its exactly what you were arguing. If the government doesn't fund a line of R&D that doesn't show profitability, a private company won't pay for it either. It deserves public dollars beacuse it potentially can be something. The greatest innovations and leaps in science come from public funding of things that don't make sense for a private business to fund. Dwarf wheat, or what you think wheat is, only was discovered to be so good beacuse some random guy was testing every kind of wheat he could find to see what would work best. If you have Cargill funding this research, this technology never makes it to India and pakistan, after Dwarf wheat spread to the subcontinent the wars between them stopped. Yes, the government should fund broad simple research that isn't directly investible or translatable as a big project. Dwarf wheat didn't cost half a billion. The point you're making has to face scale differences here. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Like yeah, if you can make experiments about cold fusion the government should be putting those billiosn to it, it would make everything a lot better. thats how cold fusion has been developed so far. Mrna vaccines were only created beacuse there was such insane funding given to it by the public. Even in the middle of the plague the government had to fund the research to cure it. Was there not enough of a profit motive for big pharma to fund it before the plague? Would it have been great to have mrna tech before it was needed? If it turned out so well for the covid vaccine why didn't the private sector fund the research into it?
Yes cost benifit, great argument. If there was an agency that could generate 3 dollars for every dollar invested should we fund that? If cold fusion only cost 100 billion we should pay that instantly. You only get to cold fusion though by spending money on thousands of lines of research that lead nowhere. One potential line is by generating the fuel in orbit useing solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere, and then bringing it down to earth. Cold fusion hasn't been developed. It's not going to be developed. It's a complete pseudoscientific scam. "Generating the fuel in orbit using solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere" is something so divorced from reality it makes me feel cruel for having vastly overestimated what I'm dealing with. Solar power is not cold fusion. Solar power is good, which makes it different than cold fusion. Solar panels create electricity, which is different than cold fusion devices, which do not create electricity, but can be measured to create electricity if you plug them into a wall outlet. Solar panels in space are good at powering things - if the things they are powering are also in space. Otherwise spending millions to billions of dollars making solar farms in orbit and beaming shit with lasers is not more efficient than just putting panels on Earth. Every cent on cold fusion is PURE waste. So the government shouldn't be the one wasting. Every cent spent on putting a solar panel in orbit and beaming the electricity can give you electricity, but is nonetheless a waste because money is limited and you can get the electricity by using the same money to put far more solar panels on the ground. mRNA vaccines for covid were something the government and pharma had no choice but to do. It's not ideal at all. Ideal would be the government having funded non-mRNA vaccine programs for SARS/coronaviruses over the previous 2 decades so we would have been at a better starting point when the pandemic broke out. As it is, they made a therapy with nonnegligible side effects that possibly cuts your chance of getting the virus in half for a few months. That's fine. And now we have it. Now we need other things. On August 09 2025 16:54 Acrofales wrote:
E: and I forgot to connect this back to mRNA research. Do I think public funding is needed for mRNA vaccine research? I don't know. I am not a medical researcher. Nor are you, Sermokala, and most importantly, nor is RFK. Mostly public funding is approved or denied by a panel of established researchers who evaluate the project based on a number of criteria. Some of those criteria are political, but I can't think of any other bans on the use of technology for idealist reasons. The only one that springs to mind was W's ban on stemcell research. And it was criticized by many many people, including myself, at the time. But at least the ethical argument was clear at the time. That argument doesn't even exist in the case of mRNA vaccines. It is a ban based on RFK's personal dislike of the topic. And that is not a reason funding should be cut. You are appealing to an authority on the basis of their imaginarily unassailable integrity as being part of the system. A researcher will always be biased towards research. A rocket scientist will always be biased towards rockets. A bridge builder will always be biased towards bridges. That's fine but there's a limit when spending someone else's money. So who watches the researchers? Oversight? HHS is the system. RFK is the expert. You don't have the luxury of saying you're just a layman, you have the obligation to listen to what a government agency says and then learn actually more about it. Because it's not a "personal dislike" by him it's a determination by multiple people that they are not good enough for public money to continue to pursue when it comes to respiratory viruses. Put it this way, the $500 million covers 22 mRNA vaccine programs for respiratory viruses. Why couldn't we get away with 21 before? Why would 23 be superfluous? They would have to sell it cheap, because they are not going to be able to stop other countries from just copying the cure and running with it because they ask nicely. People aren't going to just take "well you're too poor for the cancer shot we can make easily for everyone so I guess you just die" well. It would be one shot. You get a talored shot of a disease that is reprogrammed to train your body to make white blood cells that kill your specific cancer. It was cheap, hes not a rich person, and it is mass reproducible because the process of getting the specific cancer sequence, then sticking it into a few machines to get the proper shot, to getting it injected is really strightforward. You get a sample of the cancer, you put it into a sequencing machine (that has advanced beacuse of covid to the point where random hospitols can have one on standby) You take that sequence and you reprogram a weakened culture of a disease you keep on standby cheap. Its a medical treatement, It would be like saying you can't mass produce glasses beacuse of how different different eye perscriptions are. Yet zenni has them cheap beacuse the technology has developed. Again you don't know how MRNA works beacuse the same process that made the covid vaccine that worked so well is the one that made the cancer shots work. Trying to play footsie with what exactly you're cutting research dollars to is meaningless when the money for cancer Mrna research isn't being increased. The Machines and process's to make covid shots is the same as making cancer shots, beacuse its the same technology. The government literally can't fund simple research. It has to fund the obscure and theoretical in order to create the foundations for everything that comes next. Private companies aren't going to handle the logistics of getting every single strain of a plant, cataloging them, and testing all their properties. Cargill comes at the end where they say "hey this strain is good lets make tons of these". Dwarf wheat didn't cost a half a billion, getting to where they can discover it cost half a billion. Oil is not gasoline, there are tons of process's and fuels needed to power the transision between oil and all the products that come from it. Solar energy is really cheap to use in space, so you would be able to use the kinds of high energy process's needed to convert materials into other materials to make the energy on earth. Do you know how heavy or how much nuclear fuel goes into an actual nuclear reactor? Spending money researching higher physics and new energy sources is how we got solar panals. This inane idea that any money spent learning new things is a waste is madness. How do you think anything you are useing right now was created? Do you think that private industry made the internet? Do you think the people who invented the smartphone didn't have gigantic ammounts of state funded research that they had to base all their creations off of? How do you think the world works? The government made a choice, they could have made other choices. We were researching covid/SARS for a while before this, which is why we knew it could be done if we just threw tons of cash. Do you think someone walked into Trumps office and just convicned everyone to throw all that money into a random ass science experiment beacuse they just assumed it was going to work? You try to trash someone else for appealing to authority when you think the brain worm guy is the expert we should be trusting? The guy who sawed off a fish head, and then tied it to his cars roof? The guy who was going to eat a bear cub before just dumping it in the middle of a park? The guy fired the people who made the decision to go with 500 million and those 22 programs. We were literally listening to them when that was made, now we've got a guy who said no I sure know better and seed oils are bad somehow.
Having just been called a liar for saying I've met people with neopronouns, I feel entitled to turn around and question the story of "my uncle got a cheap mRNA shot that cured his cancer." I feel like cheap mRNA shot that cures cancer would have at least made a blurb on my news feed. I tried googling your claim using the clue that it came from a "genetically tailored shot of TB" and I came up with this
A modified tuberculosis (TB) vaccine, developed from the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine, is showing promise as a treatment for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer with potentially fewer side effects. This modified vaccine, developed by Texas Biomed, removes specific lipids from the BCG bacteria, aiming to reduce inflammation while still triggering an effective immune response. BCG is typically administered directly into the bladder through a catheter after the tumor has been removed. The treatment aims to stimulate the body's immune system to attack and destroy any remaining cancer cells
That sounds like what you're talking about except you're calling it an "mRNA shot" for some unknown reason. I'm all for developing mRNA technology, but I think your claim needs revision.
|
United States44190 Posts
In fairness Blackjack only I said you were lying and only then because your assertion wasn’t even remotely plausible.
|
Eh, like 3 or 4 people "called BS" which is basically a way to say I'm lying although Dan HH was kind enough to give me the benefit of the doubt in that I was simply confusing it with my doomscrolling lmao
|
On August 10 2025 09:39 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:On August 09 2025 23:35 oBlade wrote:On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:On August 08 2025 22:06 oBlade wrote:On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
Also my uncle is alive because he got an mrna shot to treat his cancer. That is fantastic. I'm glad your uncle is alive. Is it the only treatment he got? Is he the only one that got it? Because obviously the US government can't afford $500 million per life saved, so please expand the anecdote or its significance. On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
The idea that curing cancer going to profitable to pharma companies is silly. What is this sentence supposed to mean? Are you saying pharma companies are intentionally keeping people sick with cancer to get more money? Or curing cancer would be a loss for them? I don't see how any company that "cured" cancer wouldn't be worth over a trillion dollars overnight. On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
The misconception that research dollars invested should be diverted to only known technologies and science is very ignorant and not how any of this works. This is a great rebuttal to something I haven't seen argued. It is a mistake to presuppose that the word "research" necessitates any government anything whatsoever. The research isn't banned, is it? If it's so promising, why does it need public dollars? If it's such a long shot, why would it deserve public dollars? Stuck on level 1 if this can't be answered. Nor is mRNA unknown anyway. Billions of doses worldwide. Should we fund it just because it'd be really nice if it worked out? There are thousands of proposed treatments for everything that have fallen by the wayside. Okay? Cost benefit. For example, it'd be really great if the world had a cheap source of nearly unlimited clean energy. It just so happens I'm working on it, it's called cold fusion. Do I deserve $10 billion in taxpayer funds, maybe not. Yeah its the only one he got. Why would you think that he was the only one who would receive the treatment? Do you think that there wouldn't be other lives saved through the advancement of mrna shots? My uncle isn't rich or exceptional, but he was able to get a genetically tailored shot of tuberculosis that killed his cancer cells really well. If the funding didn't go through he would have to get radiation therapty and other worse treatments. Curing cancer through one shot is less profitable than a series of treatments. Yes, it would be less profitable to cure cancer quickly instead of slowly over time. Why would a company be worth trillions of dollars if it only sells a cheap cure to a problem? If the government funds this research instead of a Pharma company that means that the patent can be used for the public good so we can have that cheap cure instead of an expensive series of treatments. You have assumed for some reason that the one company with the competitive advantage of a cancer cure that was probably expensive to research would sell it cheap, and also that the cure is one shot. I have no idea why you have assumed that. Your uncle's targeted therapy was probably not cheap, and it's not mass producible because his cancer and everyone's cancer are different. If a company had a "cure" for cancer, either one-size or individually tailored, they would profit off it. Either could be more expensive than the other, but either way they would drive down the cost of competing alternative treatments. Cancer sees no respite from this by the way as it's mRNA programs for respiratory viruses that are being phased out. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Its exactly what you were arguing. If the government doesn't fund a line of R&D that doesn't show profitability, a private company won't pay for it either. It deserves public dollars beacuse it potentially can be something. The greatest innovations and leaps in science come from public funding of things that don't make sense for a private business to fund. Dwarf wheat, or what you think wheat is, only was discovered to be so good beacuse some random guy was testing every kind of wheat he could find to see what would work best. If you have Cargill funding this research, this technology never makes it to India and pakistan, after Dwarf wheat spread to the subcontinent the wars between them stopped. Yes, the government should fund broad simple research that isn't directly investible or translatable as a big project. Dwarf wheat didn't cost half a billion. The point you're making has to face scale differences here. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Like yeah, if you can make experiments about cold fusion the government should be putting those billiosn to it, it would make everything a lot better. thats how cold fusion has been developed so far. Mrna vaccines were only created beacuse there was such insane funding given to it by the public. Even in the middle of the plague the government had to fund the research to cure it. Was there not enough of a profit motive for big pharma to fund it before the plague? Would it have been great to have mrna tech before it was needed? If it turned out so well for the covid vaccine why didn't the private sector fund the research into it?
Yes cost benifit, great argument. If there was an agency that could generate 3 dollars for every dollar invested should we fund that? If cold fusion only cost 100 billion we should pay that instantly. You only get to cold fusion though by spending money on thousands of lines of research that lead nowhere. One potential line is by generating the fuel in orbit useing solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere, and then bringing it down to earth. Cold fusion hasn't been developed. It's not going to be developed. It's a complete pseudoscientific scam. "Generating the fuel in orbit using solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere" is something so divorced from reality it makes me feel cruel for having vastly overestimated what I'm dealing with. Solar power is not cold fusion. Solar power is good, which makes it different than cold fusion. Solar panels create electricity, which is different than cold fusion devices, which do not create electricity, but can be measured to create electricity if you plug them into a wall outlet. Solar panels in space are good at powering things - if the things they are powering are also in space. Otherwise spending millions to billions of dollars making solar farms in orbit and beaming shit with lasers is not more efficient than just putting panels on Earth. Every cent on cold fusion is PURE waste. So the government shouldn't be the one wasting. Every cent spent on putting a solar panel in orbit and beaming the electricity can give you electricity, but is nonetheless a waste because money is limited and you can get the electricity by using the same money to put far more solar panels on the ground. mRNA vaccines for covid were something the government and pharma had no choice but to do. It's not ideal at all. Ideal would be the government having funded non-mRNA vaccine programs for SARS/coronaviruses over the previous 2 decades so we would have been at a better starting point when the pandemic broke out. As it is, they made a therapy with nonnegligible side effects that possibly cuts your chance of getting the virus in half for a few months. That's fine. And now we have it. Now we need other things. On August 09 2025 16:54 Acrofales wrote:
E: and I forgot to connect this back to mRNA research. Do I think public funding is needed for mRNA vaccine research? I don't know. I am not a medical researcher. Nor are you, Sermokala, and most importantly, nor is RFK. Mostly public funding is approved or denied by a panel of established researchers who evaluate the project based on a number of criteria. Some of those criteria are political, but I can't think of any other bans on the use of technology for idealist reasons. The only one that springs to mind was W's ban on stemcell research. And it was criticized by many many people, including myself, at the time. But at least the ethical argument was clear at the time. That argument doesn't even exist in the case of mRNA vaccines. It is a ban based on RFK's personal dislike of the topic. And that is not a reason funding should be cut. You are appealing to an authority on the basis of their imaginarily unassailable integrity as being part of the system. A researcher will always be biased towards research. A rocket scientist will always be biased towards rockets. A bridge builder will always be biased towards bridges. That's fine but there's a limit when spending someone else's money. So who watches the researchers? Oversight? HHS is the system. RFK is the expert. You don't have the luxury of saying you're just a layman, you have the obligation to listen to what a government agency says and then learn actually more about it. Because it's not a "personal dislike" by him it's a determination by multiple people that they are not good enough for public money to continue to pursue when it comes to respiratory viruses. Put it this way, the $500 million covers 22 mRNA vaccine programs for respiratory viruses. Why couldn't we get away with 21 before? Why would 23 be superfluous? They would have to sell it cheap, because they are not going to be able to stop other countries from just copying the cure and running with it because they ask nicely. People aren't going to just take "well you're too poor for the cancer shot we can make easily for everyone so I guess you just die" well. It would be one shot. You get a talored shot of a disease that is reprogrammed to train your body to make white blood cells that kill your specific cancer. It was cheap, hes not a rich person, and it is mass reproducible because the process of getting the specific cancer sequence, then sticking it into a few machines to get the proper shot, to getting it injected is really strightforward. You get a sample of the cancer, you put it into a sequencing machine (that has advanced beacuse of covid to the point where random hospitols can have one on standby) You take that sequence and you reprogram a weakened culture of a disease you keep on standby cheap. Its a medical treatement, It would be like saying you can't mass produce glasses beacuse of how different different eye perscriptions are. Yet zenni has them cheap beacuse the technology has developed. Again you don't know how MRNA works beacuse the same process that made the covid vaccine that worked so well is the one that made the cancer shots work. Trying to play footsie with what exactly you're cutting research dollars to is meaningless when the money for cancer Mrna research isn't being increased. The Machines and process's to make covid shots is the same as making cancer shots, beacuse its the same technology. The government literally can't fund simple research. It has to fund the obscure and theoretical in order to create the foundations for everything that comes next. Private companies aren't going to handle the logistics of getting every single strain of a plant, cataloging them, and testing all their properties. Cargill comes at the end where they say "hey this strain is good lets make tons of these". Dwarf wheat didn't cost a half a billion, getting to where they can discover it cost half a billion. Oil is not gasoline, there are tons of process's and fuels needed to power the transision between oil and all the products that come from it. Solar energy is really cheap to use in space, so you would be able to use the kinds of high energy process's needed to convert materials into other materials to make the energy on earth. Do you know how heavy or how much nuclear fuel goes into an actual nuclear reactor? Spending money researching higher physics and new energy sources is how we got solar panals. This inane idea that any money spent learning new things is a waste is madness. How do you think anything you are useing right now was created? Do you think that private industry made the internet? Do you think the people who invented the smartphone didn't have gigantic ammounts of state funded research that they had to base all their creations off of? How do you think the world works? The government made a choice, they could have made other choices. We were researching covid/SARS for a while before this, which is why we knew it could be done if we just threw tons of cash. Do you think someone walked into Trumps office and just convicned everyone to throw all that money into a random ass science experiment beacuse they just assumed it was going to work? You try to trash someone else for appealing to authority when you think the brain worm guy is the expert we should be trusting? The guy who sawed off a fish head, and then tied it to his cars roof? The guy who was going to eat a bear cub before just dumping it in the middle of a park? The guy fired the people who made the decision to go with 500 million and those 22 programs. We were literally listening to them when that was made, now we've got a guy who said no I sure know better and seed oils are bad somehow. Having just been called a liar for saying I've met people with neopronouns, I feel entitled to turn around and question the story of "my uncle got a cheap mRNA shot that cured his cancer." I feel like cheap mRNA shot that cures cancer would have at least made a blurb on my news feed. I tried googling your claim using the clue that it came from a "genetically tailored shot of TB" and I came up with this Show nested quote +A modified tuberculosis (TB) vaccine, developed from the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine, is showing promise as a treatment for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer with potentially fewer side effects. This modified vaccine, developed by Texas Biomed, removes specific lipids from the BCG bacteria, aiming to reduce inflammation while still triggering an effective immune response. BCG is typically administered directly into the bladder through a catheter after the tumor has been removed. The treatment aims to stimulate the body's immune system to attack and destroy any remaining cancer cells That sounds like what you're talking about except you're calling it an "mRNA shot" for some unknown reason. I'm all for developing mRNA technology, but I think your claim needs revision.
Is your problem me using a descriptive name for the technology? I'm calling it an mRNA shot because its a dose of a vaccine thats delivered into the body. There have been many different ways to deliver medication into the body, including various ways to deliver just the covid vaccine.
Like what are you questioning exactly? You found the thing very easily and didn't even need to ask me to clarify what I was refering to. Are you confused at how expensive cancer treatments can get in america?
|
On August 10 2025 09:34 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 09:23 Razyda wrote:On August 10 2025 04:35 Introvert wrote:
You guys don't want neutrality. You think you're right and you want that acted upon! This pretty much sums it up. On another note: https://x.com/PeteHegseth/status/1953626931234054558Secretary of Defence reposted this. I can tell you guys now, that this will be fastest growing church in US. Gotta love the guys advocating for voting by household and men casting the vote as head of household, no women voting. These people are scum. Its sad they are infiltrating our government. Even introvert and oblade have to think this would be a horrendous idea.
Why would they when they’re basically holding the same positions as xDaunt without the guts he had to say them.
Trump could start deporting multigenerational American citizens and stripping them of their citizenships and all that would be required to get them on their side is a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling.
Like, it doesn’t take brains to see that this administration is attempting to develop a Chinese style command economy with American characteristics between the number fudging for the domestic audience, heavy handed attempts to pressure outside foreign competition to fund shitty American companies like Intel that should be allowed to fail in a free market economy, silencing of corporate critics through heavy handed economic pressure, and general stripping of worker rights and benefits for financial gain.
|
On August 10 2025 12:27 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 09:39 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:On August 09 2025 23:35 oBlade wrote:On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:On August 08 2025 22:06 oBlade wrote:On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
Also my uncle is alive because he got an mrna shot to treat his cancer. That is fantastic. I'm glad your uncle is alive. Is it the only treatment he got? Is he the only one that got it? Because obviously the US government can't afford $500 million per life saved, so please expand the anecdote or its significance. On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
The idea that curing cancer going to profitable to pharma companies is silly. What is this sentence supposed to mean? Are you saying pharma companies are intentionally keeping people sick with cancer to get more money? Or curing cancer would be a loss for them? I don't see how any company that "cured" cancer wouldn't be worth over a trillion dollars overnight. On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
The misconception that research dollars invested should be diverted to only known technologies and science is very ignorant and not how any of this works. This is a great rebuttal to something I haven't seen argued. It is a mistake to presuppose that the word "research" necessitates any government anything whatsoever. The research isn't banned, is it? If it's so promising, why does it need public dollars? If it's such a long shot, why would it deserve public dollars? Stuck on level 1 if this can't be answered. Nor is mRNA unknown anyway. Billions of doses worldwide. Should we fund it just because it'd be really nice if it worked out? There are thousands of proposed treatments for everything that have fallen by the wayside. Okay? Cost benefit. For example, it'd be really great if the world had a cheap source of nearly unlimited clean energy. It just so happens I'm working on it, it's called cold fusion. Do I deserve $10 billion in taxpayer funds, maybe not. Yeah its the only one he got. Why would you think that he was the only one who would receive the treatment? Do you think that there wouldn't be other lives saved through the advancement of mrna shots? My uncle isn't rich or exceptional, but he was able to get a genetically tailored shot of tuberculosis that killed his cancer cells really well. If the funding didn't go through he would have to get radiation therapty and other worse treatments. Curing cancer through one shot is less profitable than a series of treatments. Yes, it would be less profitable to cure cancer quickly instead of slowly over time. Why would a company be worth trillions of dollars if it only sells a cheap cure to a problem? If the government funds this research instead of a Pharma company that means that the patent can be used for the public good so we can have that cheap cure instead of an expensive series of treatments. You have assumed for some reason that the one company with the competitive advantage of a cancer cure that was probably expensive to research would sell it cheap, and also that the cure is one shot. I have no idea why you have assumed that. Your uncle's targeted therapy was probably not cheap, and it's not mass producible because his cancer and everyone's cancer are different. If a company had a "cure" for cancer, either one-size or individually tailored, they would profit off it. Either could be more expensive than the other, but either way they would drive down the cost of competing alternative treatments. Cancer sees no respite from this by the way as it's mRNA programs for respiratory viruses that are being phased out. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Its exactly what you were arguing. If the government doesn't fund a line of R&D that doesn't show profitability, a private company won't pay for it either. It deserves public dollars beacuse it potentially can be something. The greatest innovations and leaps in science come from public funding of things that don't make sense for a private business to fund. Dwarf wheat, or what you think wheat is, only was discovered to be so good beacuse some random guy was testing every kind of wheat he could find to see what would work best. If you have Cargill funding this research, this technology never makes it to India and pakistan, after Dwarf wheat spread to the subcontinent the wars between them stopped. Yes, the government should fund broad simple research that isn't directly investible or translatable as a big project. Dwarf wheat didn't cost half a billion. The point you're making has to face scale differences here. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Like yeah, if you can make experiments about cold fusion the government should be putting those billiosn to it, it would make everything a lot better. thats how cold fusion has been developed so far. Mrna vaccines were only created beacuse there was such insane funding given to it by the public. Even in the middle of the plague the government had to fund the research to cure it. Was there not enough of a profit motive for big pharma to fund it before the plague? Would it have been great to have mrna tech before it was needed? If it turned out so well for the covid vaccine why didn't the private sector fund the research into it?
Yes cost benifit, great argument. If there was an agency that could generate 3 dollars for every dollar invested should we fund that? If cold fusion only cost 100 billion we should pay that instantly. You only get to cold fusion though by spending money on thousands of lines of research that lead nowhere. One potential line is by generating the fuel in orbit useing solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere, and then bringing it down to earth. Cold fusion hasn't been developed. It's not going to be developed. It's a complete pseudoscientific scam. "Generating the fuel in orbit using solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere" is something so divorced from reality it makes me feel cruel for having vastly overestimated what I'm dealing with. Solar power is not cold fusion. Solar power is good, which makes it different than cold fusion. Solar panels create electricity, which is different than cold fusion devices, which do not create electricity, but can be measured to create electricity if you plug them into a wall outlet. Solar panels in space are good at powering things - if the things they are powering are also in space. Otherwise spending millions to billions of dollars making solar farms in orbit and beaming shit with lasers is not more efficient than just putting panels on Earth. Every cent on cold fusion is PURE waste. So the government shouldn't be the one wasting. Every cent spent on putting a solar panel in orbit and beaming the electricity can give you electricity, but is nonetheless a waste because money is limited and you can get the electricity by using the same money to put far more solar panels on the ground. mRNA vaccines for covid were something the government and pharma had no choice but to do. It's not ideal at all. Ideal would be the government having funded non-mRNA vaccine programs for SARS/coronaviruses over the previous 2 decades so we would have been at a better starting point when the pandemic broke out. As it is, they made a therapy with nonnegligible side effects that possibly cuts your chance of getting the virus in half for a few months. That's fine. And now we have it. Now we need other things. On August 09 2025 16:54 Acrofales wrote:
E: and I forgot to connect this back to mRNA research. Do I think public funding is needed for mRNA vaccine research? I don't know. I am not a medical researcher. Nor are you, Sermokala, and most importantly, nor is RFK. Mostly public funding is approved or denied by a panel of established researchers who evaluate the project based on a number of criteria. Some of those criteria are political, but I can't think of any other bans on the use of technology for idealist reasons. The only one that springs to mind was W's ban on stemcell research. And it was criticized by many many people, including myself, at the time. But at least the ethical argument was clear at the time. That argument doesn't even exist in the case of mRNA vaccines. It is a ban based on RFK's personal dislike of the topic. And that is not a reason funding should be cut. You are appealing to an authority on the basis of their imaginarily unassailable integrity as being part of the system. A researcher will always be biased towards research. A rocket scientist will always be biased towards rockets. A bridge builder will always be biased towards bridges. That's fine but there's a limit when spending someone else's money. So who watches the researchers? Oversight? HHS is the system. RFK is the expert. You don't have the luxury of saying you're just a layman, you have the obligation to listen to what a government agency says and then learn actually more about it. Because it's not a "personal dislike" by him it's a determination by multiple people that they are not good enough for public money to continue to pursue when it comes to respiratory viruses. Put it this way, the $500 million covers 22 mRNA vaccine programs for respiratory viruses. Why couldn't we get away with 21 before? Why would 23 be superfluous? They would have to sell it cheap, because they are not going to be able to stop other countries from just copying the cure and running with it because they ask nicely. People aren't going to just take "well you're too poor for the cancer shot we can make easily for everyone so I guess you just die" well. It would be one shot. You get a talored shot of a disease that is reprogrammed to train your body to make white blood cells that kill your specific cancer. It was cheap, hes not a rich person, and it is mass reproducible because the process of getting the specific cancer sequence, then sticking it into a few machines to get the proper shot, to getting it injected is really strightforward. You get a sample of the cancer, you put it into a sequencing machine (that has advanced beacuse of covid to the point where random hospitols can have one on standby) You take that sequence and you reprogram a weakened culture of a disease you keep on standby cheap. Its a medical treatement, It would be like saying you can't mass produce glasses beacuse of how different different eye perscriptions are. Yet zenni has them cheap beacuse the technology has developed. Again you don't know how MRNA works beacuse the same process that made the covid vaccine that worked so well is the one that made the cancer shots work. Trying to play footsie with what exactly you're cutting research dollars to is meaningless when the money for cancer Mrna research isn't being increased. The Machines and process's to make covid shots is the same as making cancer shots, beacuse its the same technology. The government literally can't fund simple research. It has to fund the obscure and theoretical in order to create the foundations for everything that comes next. Private companies aren't going to handle the logistics of getting every single strain of a plant, cataloging them, and testing all their properties. Cargill comes at the end where they say "hey this strain is good lets make tons of these". Dwarf wheat didn't cost a half a billion, getting to where they can discover it cost half a billion. Oil is not gasoline, there are tons of process's and fuels needed to power the transision between oil and all the products that come from it. Solar energy is really cheap to use in space, so you would be able to use the kinds of high energy process's needed to convert materials into other materials to make the energy on earth. Do you know how heavy or how much nuclear fuel goes into an actual nuclear reactor? Spending money researching higher physics and new energy sources is how we got solar panals. This inane idea that any money spent learning new things is a waste is madness. How do you think anything you are useing right now was created? Do you think that private industry made the internet? Do you think the people who invented the smartphone didn't have gigantic ammounts of state funded research that they had to base all their creations off of? How do you think the world works? The government made a choice, they could have made other choices. We were researching covid/SARS for a while before this, which is why we knew it could be done if we just threw tons of cash. Do you think someone walked into Trumps office and just convicned everyone to throw all that money into a random ass science experiment beacuse they just assumed it was going to work? You try to trash someone else for appealing to authority when you think the brain worm guy is the expert we should be trusting? The guy who sawed off a fish head, and then tied it to his cars roof? The guy who was going to eat a bear cub before just dumping it in the middle of a park? The guy fired the people who made the decision to go with 500 million and those 22 programs. We were literally listening to them when that was made, now we've got a guy who said no I sure know better and seed oils are bad somehow. Having just been called a liar for saying I've met people with neopronouns, I feel entitled to turn around and question the story of "my uncle got a cheap mRNA shot that cured his cancer." I feel like cheap mRNA shot that cures cancer would have at least made a blurb on my news feed. I tried googling your claim using the clue that it came from a "genetically tailored shot of TB" and I came up with this A modified tuberculosis (TB) vaccine, developed from the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine, is showing promise as a treatment for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer with potentially fewer side effects. This modified vaccine, developed by Texas Biomed, removes specific lipids from the BCG bacteria, aiming to reduce inflammation while still triggering an effective immune response. BCG is typically administered directly into the bladder through a catheter after the tumor has been removed. The treatment aims to stimulate the body's immune system to attack and destroy any remaining cancer cells That sounds like what you're talking about except you're calling it an "mRNA shot" for some unknown reason. I'm all for developing mRNA technology, but I think your claim needs revision. Is your problem me using a descriptive name for the technology? I'm calling it an mRNA shot because its a dose of a vaccine thats delivered into the body. There have been many different ways to deliver medication into the body, including various ways to deliver just the covid vaccine. Like what are you questioning exactly? You found the thing very easily and didn't even need to ask me to clarify what I was refering to. Are you confused at how expensive cancer treatments can get in america?
"mRNA shot" is not some colloquial that you can apply to any vaccine that's "delivered into the body." This treatment is derived from an attenuated vaccine that has nothing to do with mRNA vaccines like the ones for COVID. In the same manner that you wouldn't call your grandfather's polio vaccine an "mRNA shot," you shouldn't call this treatment an "mRNA shot," especially in the context of why we should pursue mRNA technology.
|
On August 10 2025 12:39 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 12:27 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 09:39 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:On August 09 2025 23:35 oBlade wrote:On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:On August 08 2025 22:06 oBlade wrote:On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
Also my uncle is alive because he got an mrna shot to treat his cancer. That is fantastic. I'm glad your uncle is alive. Is it the only treatment he got? Is he the only one that got it? Because obviously the US government can't afford $500 million per life saved, so please expand the anecdote or its significance. On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
The idea that curing cancer going to profitable to pharma companies is silly. What is this sentence supposed to mean? Are you saying pharma companies are intentionally keeping people sick with cancer to get more money? Or curing cancer would be a loss for them? I don't see how any company that "cured" cancer wouldn't be worth over a trillion dollars overnight. On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
The misconception that research dollars invested should be diverted to only known technologies and science is very ignorant and not how any of this works. This is a great rebuttal to something I haven't seen argued. It is a mistake to presuppose that the word "research" necessitates any government anything whatsoever. The research isn't banned, is it? If it's so promising, why does it need public dollars? If it's such a long shot, why would it deserve public dollars? Stuck on level 1 if this can't be answered. Nor is mRNA unknown anyway. Billions of doses worldwide. Should we fund it just because it'd be really nice if it worked out? There are thousands of proposed treatments for everything that have fallen by the wayside. Okay? Cost benefit. For example, it'd be really great if the world had a cheap source of nearly unlimited clean energy. It just so happens I'm working on it, it's called cold fusion. Do I deserve $10 billion in taxpayer funds, maybe not. Yeah its the only one he got. Why would you think that he was the only one who would receive the treatment? Do you think that there wouldn't be other lives saved through the advancement of mrna shots? My uncle isn't rich or exceptional, but he was able to get a genetically tailored shot of tuberculosis that killed his cancer cells really well. If the funding didn't go through he would have to get radiation therapty and other worse treatments. Curing cancer through one shot is less profitable than a series of treatments. Yes, it would be less profitable to cure cancer quickly instead of slowly over time. Why would a company be worth trillions of dollars if it only sells a cheap cure to a problem? If the government funds this research instead of a Pharma company that means that the patent can be used for the public good so we can have that cheap cure instead of an expensive series of treatments. You have assumed for some reason that the one company with the competitive advantage of a cancer cure that was probably expensive to research would sell it cheap, and also that the cure is one shot. I have no idea why you have assumed that. Your uncle's targeted therapy was probably not cheap, and it's not mass producible because his cancer and everyone's cancer are different. If a company had a "cure" for cancer, either one-size or individually tailored, they would profit off it. Either could be more expensive than the other, but either way they would drive down the cost of competing alternative treatments. Cancer sees no respite from this by the way as it's mRNA programs for respiratory viruses that are being phased out. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Its exactly what you were arguing. If the government doesn't fund a line of R&D that doesn't show profitability, a private company won't pay for it either. It deserves public dollars beacuse it potentially can be something. The greatest innovations and leaps in science come from public funding of things that don't make sense for a private business to fund. Dwarf wheat, or what you think wheat is, only was discovered to be so good beacuse some random guy was testing every kind of wheat he could find to see what would work best. If you have Cargill funding this research, this technology never makes it to India and pakistan, after Dwarf wheat spread to the subcontinent the wars between them stopped. Yes, the government should fund broad simple research that isn't directly investible or translatable as a big project. Dwarf wheat didn't cost half a billion. The point you're making has to face scale differences here. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Like yeah, if you can make experiments about cold fusion the government should be putting those billiosn to it, it would make everything a lot better. thats how cold fusion has been developed so far. Mrna vaccines were only created beacuse there was such insane funding given to it by the public. Even in the middle of the plague the government had to fund the research to cure it. Was there not enough of a profit motive for big pharma to fund it before the plague? Would it have been great to have mrna tech before it was needed? If it turned out so well for the covid vaccine why didn't the private sector fund the research into it?
Yes cost benifit, great argument. If there was an agency that could generate 3 dollars for every dollar invested should we fund that? If cold fusion only cost 100 billion we should pay that instantly. You only get to cold fusion though by spending money on thousands of lines of research that lead nowhere. One potential line is by generating the fuel in orbit useing solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere, and then bringing it down to earth. Cold fusion hasn't been developed. It's not going to be developed. It's a complete pseudoscientific scam. "Generating the fuel in orbit using solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere" is something so divorced from reality it makes me feel cruel for having vastly overestimated what I'm dealing with. Solar power is not cold fusion. Solar power is good, which makes it different than cold fusion. Solar panels create electricity, which is different than cold fusion devices, which do not create electricity, but can be measured to create electricity if you plug them into a wall outlet. Solar panels in space are good at powering things - if the things they are powering are also in space. Otherwise spending millions to billions of dollars making solar farms in orbit and beaming shit with lasers is not more efficient than just putting panels on Earth. Every cent on cold fusion is PURE waste. So the government shouldn't be the one wasting. Every cent spent on putting a solar panel in orbit and beaming the electricity can give you electricity, but is nonetheless a waste because money is limited and you can get the electricity by using the same money to put far more solar panels on the ground. mRNA vaccines for covid were something the government and pharma had no choice but to do. It's not ideal at all. Ideal would be the government having funded non-mRNA vaccine programs for SARS/coronaviruses over the previous 2 decades so we would have been at a better starting point when the pandemic broke out. As it is, they made a therapy with nonnegligible side effects that possibly cuts your chance of getting the virus in half for a few months. That's fine. And now we have it. Now we need other things. On August 09 2025 16:54 Acrofales wrote:
E: and I forgot to connect this back to mRNA research. Do I think public funding is needed for mRNA vaccine research? I don't know. I am not a medical researcher. Nor are you, Sermokala, and most importantly, nor is RFK. Mostly public funding is approved or denied by a panel of established researchers who evaluate the project based on a number of criteria. Some of those criteria are political, but I can't think of any other bans on the use of technology for idealist reasons. The only one that springs to mind was W's ban on stemcell research. And it was criticized by many many people, including myself, at the time. But at least the ethical argument was clear at the time. That argument doesn't even exist in the case of mRNA vaccines. It is a ban based on RFK's personal dislike of the topic. And that is not a reason funding should be cut. You are appealing to an authority on the basis of their imaginarily unassailable integrity as being part of the system. A researcher will always be biased towards research. A rocket scientist will always be biased towards rockets. A bridge builder will always be biased towards bridges. That's fine but there's a limit when spending someone else's money. So who watches the researchers? Oversight? HHS is the system. RFK is the expert. You don't have the luxury of saying you're just a layman, you have the obligation to listen to what a government agency says and then learn actually more about it. Because it's not a "personal dislike" by him it's a determination by multiple people that they are not good enough for public money to continue to pursue when it comes to respiratory viruses. Put it this way, the $500 million covers 22 mRNA vaccine programs for respiratory viruses. Why couldn't we get away with 21 before? Why would 23 be superfluous? They would have to sell it cheap, because they are not going to be able to stop other countries from just copying the cure and running with it because they ask nicely. People aren't going to just take "well you're too poor for the cancer shot we can make easily for everyone so I guess you just die" well. It would be one shot. You get a talored shot of a disease that is reprogrammed to train your body to make white blood cells that kill your specific cancer. It was cheap, hes not a rich person, and it is mass reproducible because the process of getting the specific cancer sequence, then sticking it into a few machines to get the proper shot, to getting it injected is really strightforward. You get a sample of the cancer, you put it into a sequencing machine (that has advanced beacuse of covid to the point where random hospitols can have one on standby) You take that sequence and you reprogram a weakened culture of a disease you keep on standby cheap. Its a medical treatement, It would be like saying you can't mass produce glasses beacuse of how different different eye perscriptions are. Yet zenni has them cheap beacuse the technology has developed. Again you don't know how MRNA works beacuse the same process that made the covid vaccine that worked so well is the one that made the cancer shots work. Trying to play footsie with what exactly you're cutting research dollars to is meaningless when the money for cancer Mrna research isn't being increased. The Machines and process's to make covid shots is the same as making cancer shots, beacuse its the same technology. The government literally can't fund simple research. It has to fund the obscure and theoretical in order to create the foundations for everything that comes next. Private companies aren't going to handle the logistics of getting every single strain of a plant, cataloging them, and testing all their properties. Cargill comes at the end where they say "hey this strain is good lets make tons of these". Dwarf wheat didn't cost a half a billion, getting to where they can discover it cost half a billion. Oil is not gasoline, there are tons of process's and fuels needed to power the transision between oil and all the products that come from it. Solar energy is really cheap to use in space, so you would be able to use the kinds of high energy process's needed to convert materials into other materials to make the energy on earth. Do you know how heavy or how much nuclear fuel goes into an actual nuclear reactor? Spending money researching higher physics and new energy sources is how we got solar panals. This inane idea that any money spent learning new things is a waste is madness. How do you think anything you are useing right now was created? Do you think that private industry made the internet? Do you think the people who invented the smartphone didn't have gigantic ammounts of state funded research that they had to base all their creations off of? How do you think the world works? The government made a choice, they could have made other choices. We were researching covid/SARS for a while before this, which is why we knew it could be done if we just threw tons of cash. Do you think someone walked into Trumps office and just convicned everyone to throw all that money into a random ass science experiment beacuse they just assumed it was going to work? You try to trash someone else for appealing to authority when you think the brain worm guy is the expert we should be trusting? The guy who sawed off a fish head, and then tied it to his cars roof? The guy who was going to eat a bear cub before just dumping it in the middle of a park? The guy fired the people who made the decision to go with 500 million and those 22 programs. We were literally listening to them when that was made, now we've got a guy who said no I sure know better and seed oils are bad somehow. Having just been called a liar for saying I've met people with neopronouns, I feel entitled to turn around and question the story of "my uncle got a cheap mRNA shot that cured his cancer." I feel like cheap mRNA shot that cures cancer would have at least made a blurb on my news feed. I tried googling your claim using the clue that it came from a "genetically tailored shot of TB" and I came up with this A modified tuberculosis (TB) vaccine, developed from the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine, is showing promise as a treatment for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer with potentially fewer side effects. This modified vaccine, developed by Texas Biomed, removes specific lipids from the BCG bacteria, aiming to reduce inflammation while still triggering an effective immune response. BCG is typically administered directly into the bladder through a catheter after the tumor has been removed. The treatment aims to stimulate the body's immune system to attack and destroy any remaining cancer cells That sounds like what you're talking about except you're calling it an "mRNA shot" for some unknown reason. I'm all for developing mRNA technology, but I think your claim needs revision. Is your problem me using a descriptive name for the technology? I'm calling it an mRNA shot because its a dose of a vaccine thats delivered into the body. There have been many different ways to deliver medication into the body, including various ways to deliver just the covid vaccine. Like what are you questioning exactly? You found the thing very easily and didn't even need to ask me to clarify what I was refering to. Are you confused at how expensive cancer treatments can get in america? "mRNA shot" is not some colloquial that you can apply to any vaccine that's "delivered into the body." This treatment is derived from an attenuated vaccine that has nothing to do with mRNA vaccines like the ones for COVID. In the same manner that you wouldn't call your grandfather's polio vaccine an "mRNA shot," you shouldn't call this treatment an "mRNA shot," especially in the context of why we should pursue mRNA technology.
If your grandfathers polio vaccine was adjusted useing mRNA technology I would call it an mRNA shot.
Are you confused about what makes mRNA technology mRNA? Like the Sequencing technology and the ability to adjust the sequences to target a response?
|
On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2025 23:35 oBlade wrote:On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:On August 08 2025 22:06 oBlade wrote:On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
Also my uncle is alive because he got an mrna shot to treat his cancer. That is fantastic. I'm glad your uncle is alive. Is it the only treatment he got? Is he the only one that got it? Because obviously the US government can't afford $500 million per life saved, so please expand the anecdote or its significance. On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
The idea that curing cancer going to profitable to pharma companies is silly. What is this sentence supposed to mean? Are you saying pharma companies are intentionally keeping people sick with cancer to get more money? Or curing cancer would be a loss for them? I don't see how any company that "cured" cancer wouldn't be worth over a trillion dollars overnight. On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
The misconception that research dollars invested should be diverted to only known technologies and science is very ignorant and not how any of this works. This is a great rebuttal to something I haven't seen argued. It is a mistake to presuppose that the word "research" necessitates any government anything whatsoever. The research isn't banned, is it? If it's so promising, why does it need public dollars? If it's such a long shot, why would it deserve public dollars? Stuck on level 1 if this can't be answered. Nor is mRNA unknown anyway. Billions of doses worldwide. Should we fund it just because it'd be really nice if it worked out? There are thousands of proposed treatments for everything that have fallen by the wayside. Okay? Cost benefit. For example, it'd be really great if the world had a cheap source of nearly unlimited clean energy. It just so happens I'm working on it, it's called cold fusion. Do I deserve $10 billion in taxpayer funds, maybe not. Yeah its the only one he got. Why would you think that he was the only one who would receive the treatment? Do you think that there wouldn't be other lives saved through the advancement of mrna shots? My uncle isn't rich or exceptional, but he was able to get a genetically tailored shot of tuberculosis that killed his cancer cells really well. If the funding didn't go through he would have to get radiation therapty and other worse treatments. Curing cancer through one shot is less profitable than a series of treatments. Yes, it would be less profitable to cure cancer quickly instead of slowly over time. Why would a company be worth trillions of dollars if it only sells a cheap cure to a problem? If the government funds this research instead of a Pharma company that means that the patent can be used for the public good so we can have that cheap cure instead of an expensive series of treatments. You have assumed for some reason that the one company with the competitive advantage of a cancer cure that was probably expensive to research would sell it cheap, and also that the cure is one shot. I have no idea why you have assumed that. Your uncle's targeted therapy was probably not cheap, and it's not mass producible because his cancer and everyone's cancer are different. If a company had a "cure" for cancer, either one-size or individually tailored, they would profit off it. Either could be more expensive than the other, but either way they would drive down the cost of competing alternative treatments. Cancer sees no respite from this by the way as it's mRNA programs for respiratory viruses that are being phased out. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Its exactly what you were arguing. If the government doesn't fund a line of R&D that doesn't show profitability, a private company won't pay for it either. It deserves public dollars beacuse it potentially can be something. The greatest innovations and leaps in science come from public funding of things that don't make sense for a private business to fund. Dwarf wheat, or what you think wheat is, only was discovered to be so good beacuse some random guy was testing every kind of wheat he could find to see what would work best. If you have Cargill funding this research, this technology never makes it to India and pakistan, after Dwarf wheat spread to the subcontinent the wars between them stopped. Yes, the government should fund broad simple research that isn't directly investible or translatable as a big project. Dwarf wheat didn't cost half a billion. The point you're making has to face scale differences here. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Like yeah, if you can make experiments about cold fusion the government should be putting those billiosn to it, it would make everything a lot better. thats how cold fusion has been developed so far. Mrna vaccines were only created beacuse there was such insane funding given to it by the public. Even in the middle of the plague the government had to fund the research to cure it. Was there not enough of a profit motive for big pharma to fund it before the plague? Would it have been great to have mrna tech before it was needed? If it turned out so well for the covid vaccine why didn't the private sector fund the research into it?
Yes cost benifit, great argument. If there was an agency that could generate 3 dollars for every dollar invested should we fund that? If cold fusion only cost 100 billion we should pay that instantly. You only get to cold fusion though by spending money on thousands of lines of research that lead nowhere. One potential line is by generating the fuel in orbit useing solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere, and then bringing it down to earth. Cold fusion hasn't been developed. It's not going to be developed. It's a complete pseudoscientific scam. "Generating the fuel in orbit using solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere" is something so divorced from reality it makes me feel cruel for having vastly overestimated what I'm dealing with. Solar power is not cold fusion. Solar power is good, which makes it different than cold fusion. Solar panels create electricity, which is different than cold fusion devices, which do not create electricity, but can be measured to create electricity if you plug them into a wall outlet. Solar panels in space are good at powering things - if the things they are powering are also in space. Otherwise spending millions to billions of dollars making solar farms in orbit and beaming shit with lasers is not more efficient than just putting panels on Earth. Every cent on cold fusion is PURE waste. So the government shouldn't be the one wasting. Every cent spent on putting a solar panel in orbit and beaming the electricity can give you electricity, but is nonetheless a waste because money is limited and you can get the electricity by using the same money to put far more solar panels on the ground. mRNA vaccines for covid were something the government and pharma had no choice but to do. It's not ideal at all. Ideal would be the government having funded non-mRNA vaccine programs for SARS/coronaviruses over the previous 2 decades so we would have been at a better starting point when the pandemic broke out. As it is, they made a therapy with nonnegligible side effects that possibly cuts your chance of getting the virus in half for a few months. That's fine. And now we have it. Now we need other things. On August 09 2025 16:54 Acrofales wrote:
E: and I forgot to connect this back to mRNA research. Do I think public funding is needed for mRNA vaccine research? I don't know. I am not a medical researcher. Nor are you, Sermokala, and most importantly, nor is RFK. Mostly public funding is approved or denied by a panel of established researchers who evaluate the project based on a number of criteria. Some of those criteria are political, but I can't think of any other bans on the use of technology for idealist reasons. The only one that springs to mind was W's ban on stemcell research. And it was criticized by many many people, including myself, at the time. But at least the ethical argument was clear at the time. That argument doesn't even exist in the case of mRNA vaccines. It is a ban based on RFK's personal dislike of the topic. And that is not a reason funding should be cut. You are appealing to an authority on the basis of their imaginarily unassailable integrity as being part of the system. A researcher will always be biased towards research. A rocket scientist will always be biased towards rockets. A bridge builder will always be biased towards bridges. That's fine but there's a limit when spending someone else's money. So who watches the researchers? Oversight? HHS is the system. RFK is the expert. You don't have the luxury of saying you're just a layman, you have the obligation to listen to what a government agency says and then learn actually more about it. Because it's not a "personal dislike" by him it's a determination by multiple people that they are not good enough for public money to continue to pursue when it comes to respiratory viruses. Put it this way, the $500 million covers 22 mRNA vaccine programs for respiratory viruses. Why couldn't we get away with 21 before? Why would 23 be superfluous? They would have to sell it cheap, because they are not going to be able to stop other countries from just copying the cure and running with it because they ask nicely. People aren't going to just take "well you're too poor for the cancer shot we can make easily for everyone so I guess you just die" well. It would be one shot. You get a talored shot of a disease that is reprogrammed to train your body to make white blood cells that kill your specific cancer. It was cheap, hes not a rich person, and it is mass reproducible because the process of getting the specific cancer sequence, then sticking it into a few machines to get the proper shot, to getting it injected is really strightforward. You get a sample of the cancer, you put it into a sequencing machine (that has advanced beacuse of covid to the point where random hospitols can have one on standby) You take that sequence and you reprogram a weakened culture of a disease you keep on standby cheap. Its a medical treatement, It would be like saying you can't mass produce glasses beacuse of how different different eye perscriptions are. Yet zenni has them cheap beacuse the technology has developed.
It was cheap for him, cool. Was he in a trial? Covered by insurance?
Ozempic is mass produced. That doesn't mean it's cheap. That's what has made the market value the company so much more. Notice you don't see Johnson&Johnson making Ozempic.
Countries can use emergency health declarations to skirt IP restrictions and make generics of drugs. But when they do that, they can get retaliated against in other ways. And the justification doesn't exist in the case of cancer because cancer is not an infectious disease the way for example HIV pandemics can need emergency intervention. Curing cancer is lucrative. The reason cancer is uncured is not that curing it is too cheap.
On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:
Again you don't know how MRNA works beacuse the same process that made the covid vaccine that worked so well is the one that made the cancer shots work. Trying to play footsie with what exactly you're cutting research dollars to is meaningless when the money for cancer Mrna research isn't being increased. The Machines and process's to make covid shots is the same as making cancer shots, beacuse its the same technology.
I'm going to agree with BlackJack on this, you've told us a cheap one shot cure for cancer already exists and your uncle is living proof so it's really making me not understand why further public research is urgent or warranted.
On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:
The government literally can't fund simple research. It has to fund the obscure and theoretical in order to create the foundations for everything that comes next. Private companies aren't going to handle the logistics of getting every single strain of a plant, cataloging them, and testing all their properties. Cargill comes at the end where they say "hey this strain is good lets make tons of these". Dwarf wheat didn't cost a half a billion, getting to where they can discover it cost half a billion.
The "obscure and theoretical" is "simple" because it's not a billions of dollars megaproject. It's low risk, low cost, unclear if any reward, and you mass saturate thousands of poor scientists working in different directions. It is obnoxious you fucking arguing with me about something we already agreed on just because I expressed the same idea with a different word.
On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:
Oil is not gasoline, there are tons of process's and fuels needed to power the transision between oil and all the products that come from it. Solar energy is really cheap to use in space, so you would be able to use the kinds of high energy process's needed to convert materials into other materials to make the energy on earth. Do you know how heavy or how much nuclear fuel goes into an actual nuclear reactor? Spending money researching higher physics and new energy sources is how we got solar panals. This inane idea that any money spent learning new things is a waste is madness. How do you think anything you are useing right now was created? Do you think that private industry made the internet? Do you think the people who invented the smartphone didn't have gigantic ammounts of state funded research that they had to base all their creations off of? How do you think the world works?
Oil is not gasoline he tells me.
Solar energy is cheap to use in space, yes. It's also cheap to use on Earth. However, we are on Earth, and the cost of going to space is expensive. For the internet, Al Gore may have invented it, but since then the vast majority of money that has gone into developing the internet has been private.
On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:
This inane idea that any money spent learning new things is a waste is madness.
Yes. Let's deport anyone who believes it. I will go directly to you if I see someone make that argument.
On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:
The government made a choice, they could have made other choices. We were researching covid/SARS for a while before this, which is why we knew it could be done if we just threw tons of cash. Do you think someone walked into Trumps office and just convicned everyone to throw all that money into a random ass science experiment beacuse they just assumed it was going to work?
Again your definition of "worked" is a treatment that might halve your chance of a specific strain of covid for a few months after you get it. That's what we have.
You are arguing that the mRNA respiratory virus research public backing disappearing is harmful to cancer dreams because it's parallel, and synergistic with, mRNA cancer research.
That's fine, except this is the Health and Human Services Department, not the Do Everything And Everything To Fix Cancer Department. There are better ways to research new avenues to prevent and treat respiratory viruses. You are ignoring the whole point and putting cancer first because of personal reasons, even though the specifically cancer stuff is unaffected. As a country we want to develop novel methods for respiratory viruses, including to lead and share with the whole world, and your #1 priority is no keep this one it might kind of help with cancer too because the hospitals will already have bought the machines.
Meanwhile respiratory viruses are in the lurch because mRNA isn't getting any better because, to put it as simply as possible, essentially, you get the mRNA shot in your arm, but you don't get infected with coronavirus through the arms. It is a fundamental constraint.
On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:
You try to trash someone else for appealing to authority when you think the brain worm guy is the expert we should be trusting? The guy who sawed off a fish head, and then tied it to his cars roof? The guy who was going to eat a bear cub before just dumping it in the middle of a park? The guy fired the people who made the decision to go with 500 million and those 22 programs. We were literally listening to them when that was made, now we've got a guy who said no I sure know better and seed oils are bad somehow.
The guy with brain worms as you say doesn't think solar panels in orbit are efficient at making fuel for cold fusion because there's no atmospheric interference.
He fired the people on ACIP, but the 22 mRNA programs at issue were under BARDA, which is about development. They recommended bailing out of the research. They're different parts of HHS. HHS by the way was very compartmentalized and inefficient when RFK took it over. That's why you get problems like redundant missions and opposing interests and lack of intercommunication among parts of it.
You shouldn't trust any experts. But you have to accept that if they do something, with a reason, you have to address the reason and not just rehash their whole life every single time they do something. You have to fundamentally move on from the fact they had a parasite once in their personal medical history. Or you have to fundamentally move on from the fact that they shared classified information within their power with someone once 8 years ago. Otherwise you just can't function.
|
On August 10 2025 12:43 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 12:39 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2025 12:27 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 09:39 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:On August 09 2025 23:35 oBlade wrote:On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:On August 08 2025 22:06 oBlade wrote:On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
Also my uncle is alive because he got an mrna shot to treat his cancer. That is fantastic. I'm glad your uncle is alive. Is it the only treatment he got? Is he the only one that got it? Because obviously the US government can't afford $500 million per life saved, so please expand the anecdote or its significance. On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
The idea that curing cancer going to profitable to pharma companies is silly. What is this sentence supposed to mean? Are you saying pharma companies are intentionally keeping people sick with cancer to get more money? Or curing cancer would be a loss for them? I don't see how any company that "cured" cancer wouldn't be worth over a trillion dollars overnight. On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
The misconception that research dollars invested should be diverted to only known technologies and science is very ignorant and not how any of this works. This is a great rebuttal to something I haven't seen argued. It is a mistake to presuppose that the word "research" necessitates any government anything whatsoever. The research isn't banned, is it? If it's so promising, why does it need public dollars? If it's such a long shot, why would it deserve public dollars? Stuck on level 1 if this can't be answered. Nor is mRNA unknown anyway. Billions of doses worldwide. Should we fund it just because it'd be really nice if it worked out? There are thousands of proposed treatments for everything that have fallen by the wayside. Okay? Cost benefit. For example, it'd be really great if the world had a cheap source of nearly unlimited clean energy. It just so happens I'm working on it, it's called cold fusion. Do I deserve $10 billion in taxpayer funds, maybe not. Yeah its the only one he got. Why would you think that he was the only one who would receive the treatment? Do you think that there wouldn't be other lives saved through the advancement of mrna shots? My uncle isn't rich or exceptional, but he was able to get a genetically tailored shot of tuberculosis that killed his cancer cells really well. If the funding didn't go through he would have to get radiation therapty and other worse treatments. Curing cancer through one shot is less profitable than a series of treatments. Yes, it would be less profitable to cure cancer quickly instead of slowly over time. Why would a company be worth trillions of dollars if it only sells a cheap cure to a problem? If the government funds this research instead of a Pharma company that means that the patent can be used for the public good so we can have that cheap cure instead of an expensive series of treatments. You have assumed for some reason that the one company with the competitive advantage of a cancer cure that was probably expensive to research would sell it cheap, and also that the cure is one shot. I have no idea why you have assumed that. Your uncle's targeted therapy was probably not cheap, and it's not mass producible because his cancer and everyone's cancer are different. If a company had a "cure" for cancer, either one-size or individually tailored, they would profit off it. Either could be more expensive than the other, but either way they would drive down the cost of competing alternative treatments. Cancer sees no respite from this by the way as it's mRNA programs for respiratory viruses that are being phased out. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Its exactly what you were arguing. If the government doesn't fund a line of R&D that doesn't show profitability, a private company won't pay for it either. It deserves public dollars beacuse it potentially can be something. The greatest innovations and leaps in science come from public funding of things that don't make sense for a private business to fund. Dwarf wheat, or what you think wheat is, only was discovered to be so good beacuse some random guy was testing every kind of wheat he could find to see what would work best. If you have Cargill funding this research, this technology never makes it to India and pakistan, after Dwarf wheat spread to the subcontinent the wars between them stopped. Yes, the government should fund broad simple research that isn't directly investible or translatable as a big project. Dwarf wheat didn't cost half a billion. The point you're making has to face scale differences here. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Like yeah, if you can make experiments about cold fusion the government should be putting those billiosn to it, it would make everything a lot better. thats how cold fusion has been developed so far. Mrna vaccines were only created beacuse there was such insane funding given to it by the public. Even in the middle of the plague the government had to fund the research to cure it. Was there not enough of a profit motive for big pharma to fund it before the plague? Would it have been great to have mrna tech before it was needed? If it turned out so well for the covid vaccine why didn't the private sector fund the research into it?
Yes cost benifit, great argument. If there was an agency that could generate 3 dollars for every dollar invested should we fund that? If cold fusion only cost 100 billion we should pay that instantly. You only get to cold fusion though by spending money on thousands of lines of research that lead nowhere. One potential line is by generating the fuel in orbit useing solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere, and then bringing it down to earth. Cold fusion hasn't been developed. It's not going to be developed. It's a complete pseudoscientific scam. "Generating the fuel in orbit using solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere" is something so divorced from reality it makes me feel cruel for having vastly overestimated what I'm dealing with. Solar power is not cold fusion. Solar power is good, which makes it different than cold fusion. Solar panels create electricity, which is different than cold fusion devices, which do not create electricity, but can be measured to create electricity if you plug them into a wall outlet. Solar panels in space are good at powering things - if the things they are powering are also in space. Otherwise spending millions to billions of dollars making solar farms in orbit and beaming shit with lasers is not more efficient than just putting panels on Earth. Every cent on cold fusion is PURE waste. So the government shouldn't be the one wasting. Every cent spent on putting a solar panel in orbit and beaming the electricity can give you electricity, but is nonetheless a waste because money is limited and you can get the electricity by using the same money to put far more solar panels on the ground. mRNA vaccines for covid were something the government and pharma had no choice but to do. It's not ideal at all. Ideal would be the government having funded non-mRNA vaccine programs for SARS/coronaviruses over the previous 2 decades so we would have been at a better starting point when the pandemic broke out. As it is, they made a therapy with nonnegligible side effects that possibly cuts your chance of getting the virus in half for a few months. That's fine. And now we have it. Now we need other things. On August 09 2025 16:54 Acrofales wrote:
E: and I forgot to connect this back to mRNA research. Do I think public funding is needed for mRNA vaccine research? I don't know. I am not a medical researcher. Nor are you, Sermokala, and most importantly, nor is RFK. Mostly public funding is approved or denied by a panel of established researchers who evaluate the project based on a number of criteria. Some of those criteria are political, but I can't think of any other bans on the use of technology for idealist reasons. The only one that springs to mind was W's ban on stemcell research. And it was criticized by many many people, including myself, at the time. But at least the ethical argument was clear at the time. That argument doesn't even exist in the case of mRNA vaccines. It is a ban based on RFK's personal dislike of the topic. And that is not a reason funding should be cut. You are appealing to an authority on the basis of their imaginarily unassailable integrity as being part of the system. A researcher will always be biased towards research. A rocket scientist will always be biased towards rockets. A bridge builder will always be biased towards bridges. That's fine but there's a limit when spending someone else's money. So who watches the researchers? Oversight? HHS is the system. RFK is the expert. You don't have the luxury of saying you're just a layman, you have the obligation to listen to what a government agency says and then learn actually more about it. Because it's not a "personal dislike" by him it's a determination by multiple people that they are not good enough for public money to continue to pursue when it comes to respiratory viruses. Put it this way, the $500 million covers 22 mRNA vaccine programs for respiratory viruses. Why couldn't we get away with 21 before? Why would 23 be superfluous? They would have to sell it cheap, because they are not going to be able to stop other countries from just copying the cure and running with it because they ask nicely. People aren't going to just take "well you're too poor for the cancer shot we can make easily for everyone so I guess you just die" well. It would be one shot. You get a talored shot of a disease that is reprogrammed to train your body to make white blood cells that kill your specific cancer. It was cheap, hes not a rich person, and it is mass reproducible because the process of getting the specific cancer sequence, then sticking it into a few machines to get the proper shot, to getting it injected is really strightforward. You get a sample of the cancer, you put it into a sequencing machine (that has advanced beacuse of covid to the point where random hospitols can have one on standby) You take that sequence and you reprogram a weakened culture of a disease you keep on standby cheap. Its a medical treatement, It would be like saying you can't mass produce glasses beacuse of how different different eye perscriptions are. Yet zenni has them cheap beacuse the technology has developed. Again you don't know how MRNA works beacuse the same process that made the covid vaccine that worked so well is the one that made the cancer shots work. Trying to play footsie with what exactly you're cutting research dollars to is meaningless when the money for cancer Mrna research isn't being increased. The Machines and process's to make covid shots is the same as making cancer shots, beacuse its the same technology. The government literally can't fund simple research. It has to fund the obscure and theoretical in order to create the foundations for everything that comes next. Private companies aren't going to handle the logistics of getting every single strain of a plant, cataloging them, and testing all their properties. Cargill comes at the end where they say "hey this strain is good lets make tons of these". Dwarf wheat didn't cost a half a billion, getting to where they can discover it cost half a billion. Oil is not gasoline, there are tons of process's and fuels needed to power the transision between oil and all the products that come from it. Solar energy is really cheap to use in space, so you would be able to use the kinds of high energy process's needed to convert materials into other materials to make the energy on earth. Do you know how heavy or how much nuclear fuel goes into an actual nuclear reactor? Spending money researching higher physics and new energy sources is how we got solar panals. This inane idea that any money spent learning new things is a waste is madness. How do you think anything you are useing right now was created? Do you think that private industry made the internet? Do you think the people who invented the smartphone didn't have gigantic ammounts of state funded research that they had to base all their creations off of? How do you think the world works? The government made a choice, they could have made other choices. We were researching covid/SARS for a while before this, which is why we knew it could be done if we just threw tons of cash. Do you think someone walked into Trumps office and just convicned everyone to throw all that money into a random ass science experiment beacuse they just assumed it was going to work? You try to trash someone else for appealing to authority when you think the brain worm guy is the expert we should be trusting? The guy who sawed off a fish head, and then tied it to his cars roof? The guy who was going to eat a bear cub before just dumping it in the middle of a park? The guy fired the people who made the decision to go with 500 million and those 22 programs. We were literally listening to them when that was made, now we've got a guy who said no I sure know better and seed oils are bad somehow. Having just been called a liar for saying I've met people with neopronouns, I feel entitled to turn around and question the story of "my uncle got a cheap mRNA shot that cured his cancer." I feel like cheap mRNA shot that cures cancer would have at least made a blurb on my news feed. I tried googling your claim using the clue that it came from a "genetically tailored shot of TB" and I came up with this A modified tuberculosis (TB) vaccine, developed from the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine, is showing promise as a treatment for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer with potentially fewer side effects. This modified vaccine, developed by Texas Biomed, removes specific lipids from the BCG bacteria, aiming to reduce inflammation while still triggering an effective immune response. BCG is typically administered directly into the bladder through a catheter after the tumor has been removed. The treatment aims to stimulate the body's immune system to attack and destroy any remaining cancer cells That sounds like what you're talking about except you're calling it an "mRNA shot" for some unknown reason. I'm all for developing mRNA technology, but I think your claim needs revision. Is your problem me using a descriptive name for the technology? I'm calling it an mRNA shot because its a dose of a vaccine thats delivered into the body. There have been many different ways to deliver medication into the body, including various ways to deliver just the covid vaccine. Like what are you questioning exactly? You found the thing very easily and didn't even need to ask me to clarify what I was refering to. Are you confused at how expensive cancer treatments can get in america? "mRNA shot" is not some colloquial that you can apply to any vaccine that's "delivered into the body." This treatment is derived from an attenuated vaccine that has nothing to do with mRNA vaccines like the ones for COVID. In the same manner that you wouldn't call your grandfather's polio vaccine an "mRNA shot," you shouldn't call this treatment an "mRNA shot," especially in the context of why we should pursue mRNA technology. If your grandfathers polio vaccine was adjusted useing mRNA technology I would call it an mRNA shot. Are you confused about what makes mRNA technology mRNA? Like the Sequencing technology and the ability to adjust the sequences to target a response?
I don't know what "adjusted using mRNA technology" means in this context and frankly I don't think you know either. Feel free to share a source explaining where exactly mRNA technology comes into play in the BCG vaccine treatment for bladder cancer but considering I don't recall ever seeing you provide a hyperlink in any of your 14,000 posts, I won't hold my breath.
|
On August 10 2025 13:02 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 12:43 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 12:39 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2025 12:27 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 09:39 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:On August 09 2025 23:35 oBlade wrote:On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:On August 08 2025 22:06 oBlade wrote:On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
Also my uncle is alive because he got an mrna shot to treat his cancer. That is fantastic. I'm glad your uncle is alive. Is it the only treatment he got? Is he the only one that got it? Because obviously the US government can't afford $500 million per life saved, so please expand the anecdote or its significance. On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
The idea that curing cancer going to profitable to pharma companies is silly. What is this sentence supposed to mean? Are you saying pharma companies are intentionally keeping people sick with cancer to get more money? Or curing cancer would be a loss for them? I don't see how any company that "cured" cancer wouldn't be worth over a trillion dollars overnight. On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
The misconception that research dollars invested should be diverted to only known technologies and science is very ignorant and not how any of this works. This is a great rebuttal to something I haven't seen argued. It is a mistake to presuppose that the word "research" necessitates any government anything whatsoever. The research isn't banned, is it? If it's so promising, why does it need public dollars? If it's such a long shot, why would it deserve public dollars? Stuck on level 1 if this can't be answered. Nor is mRNA unknown anyway. Billions of doses worldwide. Should we fund it just because it'd be really nice if it worked out? There are thousands of proposed treatments for everything that have fallen by the wayside. Okay? Cost benefit. For example, it'd be really great if the world had a cheap source of nearly unlimited clean energy. It just so happens I'm working on it, it's called cold fusion. Do I deserve $10 billion in taxpayer funds, maybe not. Yeah its the only one he got. Why would you think that he was the only one who would receive the treatment? Do you think that there wouldn't be other lives saved through the advancement of mrna shots? My uncle isn't rich or exceptional, but he was able to get a genetically tailored shot of tuberculosis that killed his cancer cells really well. If the funding didn't go through he would have to get radiation therapty and other worse treatments. Curing cancer through one shot is less profitable than a series of treatments. Yes, it would be less profitable to cure cancer quickly instead of slowly over time. Why would a company be worth trillions of dollars if it only sells a cheap cure to a problem? If the government funds this research instead of a Pharma company that means that the patent can be used for the public good so we can have that cheap cure instead of an expensive series of treatments. You have assumed for some reason that the one company with the competitive advantage of a cancer cure that was probably expensive to research would sell it cheap, and also that the cure is one shot. I have no idea why you have assumed that. Your uncle's targeted therapy was probably not cheap, and it's not mass producible because his cancer and everyone's cancer are different. If a company had a "cure" for cancer, either one-size or individually tailored, they would profit off it. Either could be more expensive than the other, but either way they would drive down the cost of competing alternative treatments. Cancer sees no respite from this by the way as it's mRNA programs for respiratory viruses that are being phased out. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Its exactly what you were arguing. If the government doesn't fund a line of R&D that doesn't show profitability, a private company won't pay for it either. It deserves public dollars beacuse it potentially can be something. The greatest innovations and leaps in science come from public funding of things that don't make sense for a private business to fund. Dwarf wheat, or what you think wheat is, only was discovered to be so good beacuse some random guy was testing every kind of wheat he could find to see what would work best. If you have Cargill funding this research, this technology never makes it to India and pakistan, after Dwarf wheat spread to the subcontinent the wars between them stopped. Yes, the government should fund broad simple research that isn't directly investible or translatable as a big project. Dwarf wheat didn't cost half a billion. The point you're making has to face scale differences here. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Like yeah, if you can make experiments about cold fusion the government should be putting those billiosn to it, it would make everything a lot better. thats how cold fusion has been developed so far. Mrna vaccines were only created beacuse there was such insane funding given to it by the public. Even in the middle of the plague the government had to fund the research to cure it. Was there not enough of a profit motive for big pharma to fund it before the plague? Would it have been great to have mrna tech before it was needed? If it turned out so well for the covid vaccine why didn't the private sector fund the research into it?
Yes cost benifit, great argument. If there was an agency that could generate 3 dollars for every dollar invested should we fund that? If cold fusion only cost 100 billion we should pay that instantly. You only get to cold fusion though by spending money on thousands of lines of research that lead nowhere. One potential line is by generating the fuel in orbit useing solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere, and then bringing it down to earth. Cold fusion hasn't been developed. It's not going to be developed. It's a complete pseudoscientific scam. "Generating the fuel in orbit using solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere" is something so divorced from reality it makes me feel cruel for having vastly overestimated what I'm dealing with. Solar power is not cold fusion. Solar power is good, which makes it different than cold fusion. Solar panels create electricity, which is different than cold fusion devices, which do not create electricity, but can be measured to create electricity if you plug them into a wall outlet. Solar panels in space are good at powering things - if the things they are powering are also in space. Otherwise spending millions to billions of dollars making solar farms in orbit and beaming shit with lasers is not more efficient than just putting panels on Earth. Every cent on cold fusion is PURE waste. So the government shouldn't be the one wasting. Every cent spent on putting a solar panel in orbit and beaming the electricity can give you electricity, but is nonetheless a waste because money is limited and you can get the electricity by using the same money to put far more solar panels on the ground. mRNA vaccines for covid were something the government and pharma had no choice but to do. It's not ideal at all. Ideal would be the government having funded non-mRNA vaccine programs for SARS/coronaviruses over the previous 2 decades so we would have been at a better starting point when the pandemic broke out. As it is, they made a therapy with nonnegligible side effects that possibly cuts your chance of getting the virus in half for a few months. That's fine. And now we have it. Now we need other things. On August 09 2025 16:54 Acrofales wrote:
E: and I forgot to connect this back to mRNA research. Do I think public funding is needed for mRNA vaccine research? I don't know. I am not a medical researcher. Nor are you, Sermokala, and most importantly, nor is RFK. Mostly public funding is approved or denied by a panel of established researchers who evaluate the project based on a number of criteria. Some of those criteria are political, but I can't think of any other bans on the use of technology for idealist reasons. The only one that springs to mind was W's ban on stemcell research. And it was criticized by many many people, including myself, at the time. But at least the ethical argument was clear at the time. That argument doesn't even exist in the case of mRNA vaccines. It is a ban based on RFK's personal dislike of the topic. And that is not a reason funding should be cut. You are appealing to an authority on the basis of their imaginarily unassailable integrity as being part of the system. A researcher will always be biased towards research. A rocket scientist will always be biased towards rockets. A bridge builder will always be biased towards bridges. That's fine but there's a limit when spending someone else's money. So who watches the researchers? Oversight? HHS is the system. RFK is the expert. You don't have the luxury of saying you're just a layman, you have the obligation to listen to what a government agency says and then learn actually more about it. Because it's not a "personal dislike" by him it's a determination by multiple people that they are not good enough for public money to continue to pursue when it comes to respiratory viruses. Put it this way, the $500 million covers 22 mRNA vaccine programs for respiratory viruses. Why couldn't we get away with 21 before? Why would 23 be superfluous? They would have to sell it cheap, because they are not going to be able to stop other countries from just copying the cure and running with it because they ask nicely. People aren't going to just take "well you're too poor for the cancer shot we can make easily for everyone so I guess you just die" well. It would be one shot. You get a talored shot of a disease that is reprogrammed to train your body to make white blood cells that kill your specific cancer. It was cheap, hes not a rich person, and it is mass reproducible because the process of getting the specific cancer sequence, then sticking it into a few machines to get the proper shot, to getting it injected is really strightforward. You get a sample of the cancer, you put it into a sequencing machine (that has advanced beacuse of covid to the point where random hospitols can have one on standby) You take that sequence and you reprogram a weakened culture of a disease you keep on standby cheap. Its a medical treatement, It would be like saying you can't mass produce glasses beacuse of how different different eye perscriptions are. Yet zenni has them cheap beacuse the technology has developed. Again you don't know how MRNA works beacuse the same process that made the covid vaccine that worked so well is the one that made the cancer shots work. Trying to play footsie with what exactly you're cutting research dollars to is meaningless when the money for cancer Mrna research isn't being increased. The Machines and process's to make covid shots is the same as making cancer shots, beacuse its the same technology. The government literally can't fund simple research. It has to fund the obscure and theoretical in order to create the foundations for everything that comes next. Private companies aren't going to handle the logistics of getting every single strain of a plant, cataloging them, and testing all their properties. Cargill comes at the end where they say "hey this strain is good lets make tons of these". Dwarf wheat didn't cost a half a billion, getting to where they can discover it cost half a billion. Oil is not gasoline, there are tons of process's and fuels needed to power the transision between oil and all the products that come from it. Solar energy is really cheap to use in space, so you would be able to use the kinds of high energy process's needed to convert materials into other materials to make the energy on earth. Do you know how heavy or how much nuclear fuel goes into an actual nuclear reactor? Spending money researching higher physics and new energy sources is how we got solar panals. This inane idea that any money spent learning new things is a waste is madness. How do you think anything you are useing right now was created? Do you think that private industry made the internet? Do you think the people who invented the smartphone didn't have gigantic ammounts of state funded research that they had to base all their creations off of? How do you think the world works? The government made a choice, they could have made other choices. We were researching covid/SARS for a while before this, which is why we knew it could be done if we just threw tons of cash. Do you think someone walked into Trumps office and just convicned everyone to throw all that money into a random ass science experiment beacuse they just assumed it was going to work? You try to trash someone else for appealing to authority when you think the brain worm guy is the expert we should be trusting? The guy who sawed off a fish head, and then tied it to his cars roof? The guy who was going to eat a bear cub before just dumping it in the middle of a park? The guy fired the people who made the decision to go with 500 million and those 22 programs. We were literally listening to them when that was made, now we've got a guy who said no I sure know better and seed oils are bad somehow. Having just been called a liar for saying I've met people with neopronouns, I feel entitled to turn around and question the story of "my uncle got a cheap mRNA shot that cured his cancer." I feel like cheap mRNA shot that cures cancer would have at least made a blurb on my news feed. I tried googling your claim using the clue that it came from a "genetically tailored shot of TB" and I came up with this A modified tuberculosis (TB) vaccine, developed from the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine, is showing promise as a treatment for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer with potentially fewer side effects. This modified vaccine, developed by Texas Biomed, removes specific lipids from the BCG bacteria, aiming to reduce inflammation while still triggering an effective immune response. BCG is typically administered directly into the bladder through a catheter after the tumor has been removed. The treatment aims to stimulate the body's immune system to attack and destroy any remaining cancer cells That sounds like what you're talking about except you're calling it an "mRNA shot" for some unknown reason. I'm all for developing mRNA technology, but I think your claim needs revision. Is your problem me using a descriptive name for the technology? I'm calling it an mRNA shot because its a dose of a vaccine thats delivered into the body. There have been many different ways to deliver medication into the body, including various ways to deliver just the covid vaccine. Like what are you questioning exactly? You found the thing very easily and didn't even need to ask me to clarify what I was refering to. Are you confused at how expensive cancer treatments can get in america? "mRNA shot" is not some colloquial that you can apply to any vaccine that's "delivered into the body." This treatment is derived from an attenuated vaccine that has nothing to do with mRNA vaccines like the ones for COVID. In the same manner that you wouldn't call your grandfather's polio vaccine an "mRNA shot," you shouldn't call this treatment an "mRNA shot," especially in the context of why we should pursue mRNA technology. If your grandfathers polio vaccine was adjusted useing mRNA technology I would call it an mRNA shot. Are you confused about what makes mRNA technology mRNA? Like the Sequencing technology and the ability to adjust the sequences to target a response? I don't know what "adjusted using mRNA technology" means in this context and frankly I don't think you know either. Feel free to share a source explaining where exactly mRNA technology comes into play in the BCG vaccine treatment for bladder cancer but considering I don't recall ever seeing you provide a hyperlink in any of your 14,000 posts, I won't hold my breath.
BJ you've never provided anyone a reason to do the effort to try and educate you on anything. You clearly have no idea what a vaccine is and now we at least know why. I would have to put in work to educate you on the basic terms of what RNA is and the machines used in sequencing.
|
On August 10 2025 13:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 13:02 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2025 12:43 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 12:39 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2025 12:27 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 09:39 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:On August 09 2025 23:35 oBlade wrote:On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:On August 08 2025 22:06 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
That is fantastic. I'm glad your uncle is alive.
Is it the only treatment he got? Is he the only one that got it? Because obviously the US government can't afford $500 million per life saved, so please expand the anecdote or its significance.
[quote]
What is this sentence supposed to mean?
Are you saying pharma companies are intentionally keeping people sick with cancer to get more money? Or curing cancer would be a loss for them? I don't see how any company that "cured" cancer wouldn't be worth over a trillion dollars overnight.
[quote]
This is a great rebuttal to something I haven't seen argued.
It is a mistake to presuppose that the word "research" necessitates any government anything whatsoever. The research isn't banned, is it? If it's so promising, why does it need public dollars? If it's such a long shot, why would it deserve public dollars? Stuck on level 1 if this can't be answered.
Nor is mRNA unknown anyway. Billions of doses worldwide. Should we fund it just because it'd be really nice if it worked out? There are thousands of proposed treatments for everything that have fallen by the wayside. Okay? Cost benefit. For example, it'd be really great if the world had a cheap source of nearly unlimited clean energy. It just so happens I'm working on it, it's called cold fusion. Do I deserve $10 billion in taxpayer funds, maybe not. Yeah its the only one he got. Why would you think that he was the only one who would receive the treatment? Do you think that there wouldn't be other lives saved through the advancement of mrna shots? My uncle isn't rich or exceptional, but he was able to get a genetically tailored shot of tuberculosis that killed his cancer cells really well. If the funding didn't go through he would have to get radiation therapty and other worse treatments. Curing cancer through one shot is less profitable than a series of treatments. Yes, it would be less profitable to cure cancer quickly instead of slowly over time. Why would a company be worth trillions of dollars if it only sells a cheap cure to a problem? If the government funds this research instead of a Pharma company that means that the patent can be used for the public good so we can have that cheap cure instead of an expensive series of treatments. You have assumed for some reason that the one company with the competitive advantage of a cancer cure that was probably expensive to research would sell it cheap, and also that the cure is one shot. I have no idea why you have assumed that. Your uncle's targeted therapy was probably not cheap, and it's not mass producible because his cancer and everyone's cancer are different. If a company had a "cure" for cancer, either one-size or individually tailored, they would profit off it. Either could be more expensive than the other, but either way they would drive down the cost of competing alternative treatments. Cancer sees no respite from this by the way as it's mRNA programs for respiratory viruses that are being phased out. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Its exactly what you were arguing. If the government doesn't fund a line of R&D that doesn't show profitability, a private company won't pay for it either. It deserves public dollars beacuse it potentially can be something. The greatest innovations and leaps in science come from public funding of things that don't make sense for a private business to fund. Dwarf wheat, or what you think wheat is, only was discovered to be so good beacuse some random guy was testing every kind of wheat he could find to see what would work best. If you have Cargill funding this research, this technology never makes it to India and pakistan, after Dwarf wheat spread to the subcontinent the wars between them stopped. Yes, the government should fund broad simple research that isn't directly investible or translatable as a big project. Dwarf wheat didn't cost half a billion. The point you're making has to face scale differences here. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Like yeah, if you can make experiments about cold fusion the government should be putting those billiosn to it, it would make everything a lot better. thats how cold fusion has been developed so far. Mrna vaccines were only created beacuse there was such insane funding given to it by the public. Even in the middle of the plague the government had to fund the research to cure it. Was there not enough of a profit motive for big pharma to fund it before the plague? Would it have been great to have mrna tech before it was needed? If it turned out so well for the covid vaccine why didn't the private sector fund the research into it?
Yes cost benifit, great argument. If there was an agency that could generate 3 dollars for every dollar invested should we fund that? If cold fusion only cost 100 billion we should pay that instantly. You only get to cold fusion though by spending money on thousands of lines of research that lead nowhere. One potential line is by generating the fuel in orbit useing solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere, and then bringing it down to earth. Cold fusion hasn't been developed. It's not going to be developed. It's a complete pseudoscientific scam. "Generating the fuel in orbit using solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere" is something so divorced from reality it makes me feel cruel for having vastly overestimated what I'm dealing with. Solar power is not cold fusion. Solar power is good, which makes it different than cold fusion. Solar panels create electricity, which is different than cold fusion devices, which do not create electricity, but can be measured to create electricity if you plug them into a wall outlet. Solar panels in space are good at powering things - if the things they are powering are also in space. Otherwise spending millions to billions of dollars making solar farms in orbit and beaming shit with lasers is not more efficient than just putting panels on Earth. Every cent on cold fusion is PURE waste. So the government shouldn't be the one wasting. Every cent spent on putting a solar panel in orbit and beaming the electricity can give you electricity, but is nonetheless a waste because money is limited and you can get the electricity by using the same money to put far more solar panels on the ground. mRNA vaccines for covid were something the government and pharma had no choice but to do. It's not ideal at all. Ideal would be the government having funded non-mRNA vaccine programs for SARS/coronaviruses over the previous 2 decades so we would have been at a better starting point when the pandemic broke out. As it is, they made a therapy with nonnegligible side effects that possibly cuts your chance of getting the virus in half for a few months. That's fine. And now we have it. Now we need other things. On August 09 2025 16:54 Acrofales wrote:
E: and I forgot to connect this back to mRNA research. Do I think public funding is needed for mRNA vaccine research? I don't know. I am not a medical researcher. Nor are you, Sermokala, and most importantly, nor is RFK. Mostly public funding is approved or denied by a panel of established researchers who evaluate the project based on a number of criteria. Some of those criteria are political, but I can't think of any other bans on the use of technology for idealist reasons. The only one that springs to mind was W's ban on stemcell research. And it was criticized by many many people, including myself, at the time. But at least the ethical argument was clear at the time. That argument doesn't even exist in the case of mRNA vaccines. It is a ban based on RFK's personal dislike of the topic. And that is not a reason funding should be cut. You are appealing to an authority on the basis of their imaginarily unassailable integrity as being part of the system. A researcher will always be biased towards research. A rocket scientist will always be biased towards rockets. A bridge builder will always be biased towards bridges. That's fine but there's a limit when spending someone else's money. So who watches the researchers? Oversight? HHS is the system. RFK is the expert. You don't have the luxury of saying you're just a layman, you have the obligation to listen to what a government agency says and then learn actually more about it. Because it's not a "personal dislike" by him it's a determination by multiple people that they are not good enough for public money to continue to pursue when it comes to respiratory viruses. Put it this way, the $500 million covers 22 mRNA vaccine programs for respiratory viruses. Why couldn't we get away with 21 before? Why would 23 be superfluous? They would have to sell it cheap, because they are not going to be able to stop other countries from just copying the cure and running with it because they ask nicely. People aren't going to just take "well you're too poor for the cancer shot we can make easily for everyone so I guess you just die" well. It would be one shot. You get a talored shot of a disease that is reprogrammed to train your body to make white blood cells that kill your specific cancer. It was cheap, hes not a rich person, and it is mass reproducible because the process of getting the specific cancer sequence, then sticking it into a few machines to get the proper shot, to getting it injected is really strightforward. You get a sample of the cancer, you put it into a sequencing machine (that has advanced beacuse of covid to the point where random hospitols can have one on standby) You take that sequence and you reprogram a weakened culture of a disease you keep on standby cheap. Its a medical treatement, It would be like saying you can't mass produce glasses beacuse of how different different eye perscriptions are. Yet zenni has them cheap beacuse the technology has developed. Again you don't know how MRNA works beacuse the same process that made the covid vaccine that worked so well is the one that made the cancer shots work. Trying to play footsie with what exactly you're cutting research dollars to is meaningless when the money for cancer Mrna research isn't being increased. The Machines and process's to make covid shots is the same as making cancer shots, beacuse its the same technology. The government literally can't fund simple research. It has to fund the obscure and theoretical in order to create the foundations for everything that comes next. Private companies aren't going to handle the logistics of getting every single strain of a plant, cataloging them, and testing all their properties. Cargill comes at the end where they say "hey this strain is good lets make tons of these". Dwarf wheat didn't cost a half a billion, getting to where they can discover it cost half a billion. Oil is not gasoline, there are tons of process's and fuels needed to power the transision between oil and all the products that come from it. Solar energy is really cheap to use in space, so you would be able to use the kinds of high energy process's needed to convert materials into other materials to make the energy on earth. Do you know how heavy or how much nuclear fuel goes into an actual nuclear reactor? Spending money researching higher physics and new energy sources is how we got solar panals. This inane idea that any money spent learning new things is a waste is madness. How do you think anything you are useing right now was created? Do you think that private industry made the internet? Do you think the people who invented the smartphone didn't have gigantic ammounts of state funded research that they had to base all their creations off of? How do you think the world works? The government made a choice, they could have made other choices. We were researching covid/SARS for a while before this, which is why we knew it could be done if we just threw tons of cash. Do you think someone walked into Trumps office and just convicned everyone to throw all that money into a random ass science experiment beacuse they just assumed it was going to work? You try to trash someone else for appealing to authority when you think the brain worm guy is the expert we should be trusting? The guy who sawed off a fish head, and then tied it to his cars roof? The guy who was going to eat a bear cub before just dumping it in the middle of a park? The guy fired the people who made the decision to go with 500 million and those 22 programs. We were literally listening to them when that was made, now we've got a guy who said no I sure know better and seed oils are bad somehow. Having just been called a liar for saying I've met people with neopronouns, I feel entitled to turn around and question the story of "my uncle got a cheap mRNA shot that cured his cancer." I feel like cheap mRNA shot that cures cancer would have at least made a blurb on my news feed. I tried googling your claim using the clue that it came from a "genetically tailored shot of TB" and I came up with this A modified tuberculosis (TB) vaccine, developed from the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine, is showing promise as a treatment for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer with potentially fewer side effects. This modified vaccine, developed by Texas Biomed, removes specific lipids from the BCG bacteria, aiming to reduce inflammation while still triggering an effective immune response. BCG is typically administered directly into the bladder through a catheter after the tumor has been removed. The treatment aims to stimulate the body's immune system to attack and destroy any remaining cancer cells That sounds like what you're talking about except you're calling it an "mRNA shot" for some unknown reason. I'm all for developing mRNA technology, but I think your claim needs revision. Is your problem me using a descriptive name for the technology? I'm calling it an mRNA shot because its a dose of a vaccine thats delivered into the body. There have been many different ways to deliver medication into the body, including various ways to deliver just the covid vaccine. Like what are you questioning exactly? You found the thing very easily and didn't even need to ask me to clarify what I was refering to. Are you confused at how expensive cancer treatments can get in america? "mRNA shot" is not some colloquial that you can apply to any vaccine that's "delivered into the body." This treatment is derived from an attenuated vaccine that has nothing to do with mRNA vaccines like the ones for COVID. In the same manner that you wouldn't call your grandfather's polio vaccine an "mRNA shot," you shouldn't call this treatment an "mRNA shot," especially in the context of why we should pursue mRNA technology. If your grandfathers polio vaccine was adjusted useing mRNA technology I would call it an mRNA shot. Are you confused about what makes mRNA technology mRNA? Like the Sequencing technology and the ability to adjust the sequences to target a response? I don't know what "adjusted using mRNA technology" means in this context and frankly I don't think you know either. Feel free to share a source explaining where exactly mRNA technology comes into play in the BCG vaccine treatment for bladder cancer but considering I don't recall ever seeing you provide a hyperlink in any of your 14,000 posts, I won't hold my breath. BJ you've never provided anyone a reason to do the effort to try and educate you on anything. You clearly have no idea what a vaccine is and now we at least know why. I would have to put in work to educate you on the basic terms of what RNA is and the machines used in sequencing.
Amazing how you always seem to have the spare time to get into these long back and forths with me but the second I ask for a source on what you're saying you suddenly run out of the the patience to "educate me." Funny how that works.
|
On August 10 2025 13:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 13:02 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2025 12:43 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 12:39 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2025 12:27 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 09:39 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:On August 09 2025 23:35 oBlade wrote:On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:On August 08 2025 22:06 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
That is fantastic. I'm glad your uncle is alive.
Is it the only treatment he got? Is he the only one that got it? Because obviously the US government can't afford $500 million per life saved, so please expand the anecdote or its significance.
[quote]
What is this sentence supposed to mean?
Are you saying pharma companies are intentionally keeping people sick with cancer to get more money? Or curing cancer would be a loss for them? I don't see how any company that "cured" cancer wouldn't be worth over a trillion dollars overnight.
[quote]
This is a great rebuttal to something I haven't seen argued.
It is a mistake to presuppose that the word "research" necessitates any government anything whatsoever. The research isn't banned, is it? If it's so promising, why does it need public dollars? If it's such a long shot, why would it deserve public dollars? Stuck on level 1 if this can't be answered.
Nor is mRNA unknown anyway. Billions of doses worldwide. Should we fund it just because it'd be really nice if it worked out? There are thousands of proposed treatments for everything that have fallen by the wayside. Okay? Cost benefit. For example, it'd be really great if the world had a cheap source of nearly unlimited clean energy. It just so happens I'm working on it, it's called cold fusion. Do I deserve $10 billion in taxpayer funds, maybe not. Yeah its the only one he got. Why would you think that he was the only one who would receive the treatment? Do you think that there wouldn't be other lives saved through the advancement of mrna shots? My uncle isn't rich or exceptional, but he was able to get a genetically tailored shot of tuberculosis that killed his cancer cells really well. If the funding didn't go through he would have to get radiation therapty and other worse treatments. Curing cancer through one shot is less profitable than a series of treatments. Yes, it would be less profitable to cure cancer quickly instead of slowly over time. Why would a company be worth trillions of dollars if it only sells a cheap cure to a problem? If the government funds this research instead of a Pharma company that means that the patent can be used for the public good so we can have that cheap cure instead of an expensive series of treatments. You have assumed for some reason that the one company with the competitive advantage of a cancer cure that was probably expensive to research would sell it cheap, and also that the cure is one shot. I have no idea why you have assumed that. Your uncle's targeted therapy was probably not cheap, and it's not mass producible because his cancer and everyone's cancer are different. If a company had a "cure" for cancer, either one-size or individually tailored, they would profit off it. Either could be more expensive than the other, but either way they would drive down the cost of competing alternative treatments. Cancer sees no respite from this by the way as it's mRNA programs for respiratory viruses that are being phased out. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Its exactly what you were arguing. If the government doesn't fund a line of R&D that doesn't show profitability, a private company won't pay for it either. It deserves public dollars beacuse it potentially can be something. The greatest innovations and leaps in science come from public funding of things that don't make sense for a private business to fund. Dwarf wheat, or what you think wheat is, only was discovered to be so good beacuse some random guy was testing every kind of wheat he could find to see what would work best. If you have Cargill funding this research, this technology never makes it to India and pakistan, after Dwarf wheat spread to the subcontinent the wars between them stopped. Yes, the government should fund broad simple research that isn't directly investible or translatable as a big project. Dwarf wheat didn't cost half a billion. The point you're making has to face scale differences here. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Like yeah, if you can make experiments about cold fusion the government should be putting those billiosn to it, it would make everything a lot better. thats how cold fusion has been developed so far. Mrna vaccines were only created beacuse there was such insane funding given to it by the public. Even in the middle of the plague the government had to fund the research to cure it. Was there not enough of a profit motive for big pharma to fund it before the plague? Would it have been great to have mrna tech before it was needed? If it turned out so well for the covid vaccine why didn't the private sector fund the research into it?
Yes cost benifit, great argument. If there was an agency that could generate 3 dollars for every dollar invested should we fund that? If cold fusion only cost 100 billion we should pay that instantly. You only get to cold fusion though by spending money on thousands of lines of research that lead nowhere. One potential line is by generating the fuel in orbit useing solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere, and then bringing it down to earth. Cold fusion hasn't been developed. It's not going to be developed. It's a complete pseudoscientific scam. "Generating the fuel in orbit using solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere" is something so divorced from reality it makes me feel cruel for having vastly overestimated what I'm dealing with. Solar power is not cold fusion. Solar power is good, which makes it different than cold fusion. Solar panels create electricity, which is different than cold fusion devices, which do not create electricity, but can be measured to create electricity if you plug them into a wall outlet. Solar panels in space are good at powering things - if the things they are powering are also in space. Otherwise spending millions to billions of dollars making solar farms in orbit and beaming shit with lasers is not more efficient than just putting panels on Earth. Every cent on cold fusion is PURE waste. So the government shouldn't be the one wasting. Every cent spent on putting a solar panel in orbit and beaming the electricity can give you electricity, but is nonetheless a waste because money is limited and you can get the electricity by using the same money to put far more solar panels on the ground. mRNA vaccines for covid were something the government and pharma had no choice but to do. It's not ideal at all. Ideal would be the government having funded non-mRNA vaccine programs for SARS/coronaviruses over the previous 2 decades so we would have been at a better starting point when the pandemic broke out. As it is, they made a therapy with nonnegligible side effects that possibly cuts your chance of getting the virus in half for a few months. That's fine. And now we have it. Now we need other things. On August 09 2025 16:54 Acrofales wrote:
E: and I forgot to connect this back to mRNA research. Do I think public funding is needed for mRNA vaccine research? I don't know. I am not a medical researcher. Nor are you, Sermokala, and most importantly, nor is RFK. Mostly public funding is approved or denied by a panel of established researchers who evaluate the project based on a number of criteria. Some of those criteria are political, but I can't think of any other bans on the use of technology for idealist reasons. The only one that springs to mind was W's ban on stemcell research. And it was criticized by many many people, including myself, at the time. But at least the ethical argument was clear at the time. That argument doesn't even exist in the case of mRNA vaccines. It is a ban based on RFK's personal dislike of the topic. And that is not a reason funding should be cut. You are appealing to an authority on the basis of their imaginarily unassailable integrity as being part of the system. A researcher will always be biased towards research. A rocket scientist will always be biased towards rockets. A bridge builder will always be biased towards bridges. That's fine but there's a limit when spending someone else's money. So who watches the researchers? Oversight? HHS is the system. RFK is the expert. You don't have the luxury of saying you're just a layman, you have the obligation to listen to what a government agency says and then learn actually more about it. Because it's not a "personal dislike" by him it's a determination by multiple people that they are not good enough for public money to continue to pursue when it comes to respiratory viruses. Put it this way, the $500 million covers 22 mRNA vaccine programs for respiratory viruses. Why couldn't we get away with 21 before? Why would 23 be superfluous? They would have to sell it cheap, because they are not going to be able to stop other countries from just copying the cure and running with it because they ask nicely. People aren't going to just take "well you're too poor for the cancer shot we can make easily for everyone so I guess you just die" well. It would be one shot. You get a talored shot of a disease that is reprogrammed to train your body to make white blood cells that kill your specific cancer. It was cheap, hes not a rich person, and it is mass reproducible because the process of getting the specific cancer sequence, then sticking it into a few machines to get the proper shot, to getting it injected is really strightforward. You get a sample of the cancer, you put it into a sequencing machine (that has advanced beacuse of covid to the point where random hospitols can have one on standby) You take that sequence and you reprogram a weakened culture of a disease you keep on standby cheap. Its a medical treatement, It would be like saying you can't mass produce glasses beacuse of how different different eye perscriptions are. Yet zenni has them cheap beacuse the technology has developed. Again you don't know how MRNA works beacuse the same process that made the covid vaccine that worked so well is the one that made the cancer shots work. Trying to play footsie with what exactly you're cutting research dollars to is meaningless when the money for cancer Mrna research isn't being increased. The Machines and process's to make covid shots is the same as making cancer shots, beacuse its the same technology. The government literally can't fund simple research. It has to fund the obscure and theoretical in order to create the foundations for everything that comes next. Private companies aren't going to handle the logistics of getting every single strain of a plant, cataloging them, and testing all their properties. Cargill comes at the end where they say "hey this strain is good lets make tons of these". Dwarf wheat didn't cost a half a billion, getting to where they can discover it cost half a billion. Oil is not gasoline, there are tons of process's and fuels needed to power the transision between oil and all the products that come from it. Solar energy is really cheap to use in space, so you would be able to use the kinds of high energy process's needed to convert materials into other materials to make the energy on earth. Do you know how heavy or how much nuclear fuel goes into an actual nuclear reactor? Spending money researching higher physics and new energy sources is how we got solar panals. This inane idea that any money spent learning new things is a waste is madness. How do you think anything you are useing right now was created? Do you think that private industry made the internet? Do you think the people who invented the smartphone didn't have gigantic ammounts of state funded research that they had to base all their creations off of? How do you think the world works? The government made a choice, they could have made other choices. We were researching covid/SARS for a while before this, which is why we knew it could be done if we just threw tons of cash. Do you think someone walked into Trumps office and just convicned everyone to throw all that money into a random ass science experiment beacuse they just assumed it was going to work? You try to trash someone else for appealing to authority when you think the brain worm guy is the expert we should be trusting? The guy who sawed off a fish head, and then tied it to his cars roof? The guy who was going to eat a bear cub before just dumping it in the middle of a park? The guy fired the people who made the decision to go with 500 million and those 22 programs. We were literally listening to them when that was made, now we've got a guy who said no I sure know better and seed oils are bad somehow. Having just been called a liar for saying I've met people with neopronouns, I feel entitled to turn around and question the story of "my uncle got a cheap mRNA shot that cured his cancer." I feel like cheap mRNA shot that cures cancer would have at least made a blurb on my news feed. I tried googling your claim using the clue that it came from a "genetically tailored shot of TB" and I came up with this A modified tuberculosis (TB) vaccine, developed from the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine, is showing promise as a treatment for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer with potentially fewer side effects. This modified vaccine, developed by Texas Biomed, removes specific lipids from the BCG bacteria, aiming to reduce inflammation while still triggering an effective immune response. BCG is typically administered directly into the bladder through a catheter after the tumor has been removed. The treatment aims to stimulate the body's immune system to attack and destroy any remaining cancer cells That sounds like what you're talking about except you're calling it an "mRNA shot" for some unknown reason. I'm all for developing mRNA technology, but I think your claim needs revision. Is your problem me using a descriptive name for the technology? I'm calling it an mRNA shot because its a dose of a vaccine thats delivered into the body. There have been many different ways to deliver medication into the body, including various ways to deliver just the covid vaccine. Like what are you questioning exactly? You found the thing very easily and didn't even need to ask me to clarify what I was refering to. Are you confused at how expensive cancer treatments can get in america? "mRNA shot" is not some colloquial that you can apply to any vaccine that's "delivered into the body." This treatment is derived from an attenuated vaccine that has nothing to do with mRNA vaccines like the ones for COVID. In the same manner that you wouldn't call your grandfather's polio vaccine an "mRNA shot," you shouldn't call this treatment an "mRNA shot," especially in the context of why we should pursue mRNA technology. If your grandfathers polio vaccine was adjusted useing mRNA technology I would call it an mRNA shot. Are you confused about what makes mRNA technology mRNA? Like the Sequencing technology and the ability to adjust the sequences to target a response? I don't know what "adjusted using mRNA technology" means in this context and frankly I don't think you know either. Feel free to share a source explaining where exactly mRNA technology comes into play in the BCG vaccine treatment for bladder cancer but considering I don't recall ever seeing you provide a hyperlink in any of your 14,000 posts, I won't hold my breath. BJ you've never provided anyone a reason to do the effort to try and educate you on anything. You clearly have no idea what a vaccine is and now we at least know why. I would have to put in work to educate you on the basic terms of what RNA is and the machines used in sequencing.
Here's a good way to think about the difference. An inactivated vaccine is like you have a town (the body), and you put cardboard cutouts of an enemy army on the outskirts of it. The people see it and start to build a castle. It provokes that response. It's pretty good except eventually they figure out the cardboard cutouts aren't moving. BCG is live, which is like you take an army, take away their weapons, and put them outside the city, and the city sees them and makes a castle again. mRNA vaccines are like you hire a guy to go to the town, and he's carrying a message telling the people to make cardboard cutouts of the enemy army. You hope that message gets to enough people that they make enough cutouts that people think the enemy is coming and start to arm themselves and build a castle again.
What is the overlap between mRNA therapy and what your uncle got beside the fact that RNA exists?
|
On August 10 2025 12:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:On August 09 2025 23:35 oBlade wrote:On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:On August 08 2025 22:06 oBlade wrote:On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
Also my uncle is alive because he got an mrna shot to treat his cancer. That is fantastic. I'm glad your uncle is alive. Is it the only treatment he got? Is he the only one that got it? Because obviously the US government can't afford $500 million per life saved, so please expand the anecdote or its significance. On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
The idea that curing cancer going to profitable to pharma companies is silly. What is this sentence supposed to mean? Are you saying pharma companies are intentionally keeping people sick with cancer to get more money? Or curing cancer would be a loss for them? I don't see how any company that "cured" cancer wouldn't be worth over a trillion dollars overnight. On August 08 2025 20:02 Sermokala wrote:
The misconception that research dollars invested should be diverted to only known technologies and science is very ignorant and not how any of this works. This is a great rebuttal to something I haven't seen argued. It is a mistake to presuppose that the word "research" necessitates any government anything whatsoever. The research isn't banned, is it? If it's so promising, why does it need public dollars? If it's such a long shot, why would it deserve public dollars? Stuck on level 1 if this can't be answered. Nor is mRNA unknown anyway. Billions of doses worldwide. Should we fund it just because it'd be really nice if it worked out? There are thousands of proposed treatments for everything that have fallen by the wayside. Okay? Cost benefit. For example, it'd be really great if the world had a cheap source of nearly unlimited clean energy. It just so happens I'm working on it, it's called cold fusion. Do I deserve $10 billion in taxpayer funds, maybe not. Yeah its the only one he got. Why would you think that he was the only one who would receive the treatment? Do you think that there wouldn't be other lives saved through the advancement of mrna shots? My uncle isn't rich or exceptional, but he was able to get a genetically tailored shot of tuberculosis that killed his cancer cells really well. If the funding didn't go through he would have to get radiation therapty and other worse treatments. Curing cancer through one shot is less profitable than a series of treatments. Yes, it would be less profitable to cure cancer quickly instead of slowly over time. Why would a company be worth trillions of dollars if it only sells a cheap cure to a problem? If the government funds this research instead of a Pharma company that means that the patent can be used for the public good so we can have that cheap cure instead of an expensive series of treatments. You have assumed for some reason that the one company with the competitive advantage of a cancer cure that was probably expensive to research would sell it cheap, and also that the cure is one shot. I have no idea why you have assumed that. Your uncle's targeted therapy was probably not cheap, and it's not mass producible because his cancer and everyone's cancer are different. If a company had a "cure" for cancer, either one-size or individually tailored, they would profit off it. Either could be more expensive than the other, but either way they would drive down the cost of competing alternative treatments. Cancer sees no respite from this by the way as it's mRNA programs for respiratory viruses that are being phased out. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Its exactly what you were arguing. If the government doesn't fund a line of R&D that doesn't show profitability, a private company won't pay for it either. It deserves public dollars beacuse it potentially can be something. The greatest innovations and leaps in science come from public funding of things that don't make sense for a private business to fund. Dwarf wheat, or what you think wheat is, only was discovered to be so good beacuse some random guy was testing every kind of wheat he could find to see what would work best. If you have Cargill funding this research, this technology never makes it to India and pakistan, after Dwarf wheat spread to the subcontinent the wars between them stopped. Yes, the government should fund broad simple research that isn't directly investible or translatable as a big project. Dwarf wheat didn't cost half a billion. The point you're making has to face scale differences here. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Like yeah, if you can make experiments about cold fusion the government should be putting those billiosn to it, it would make everything a lot better. thats how cold fusion has been developed so far. Mrna vaccines were only created beacuse there was such insane funding given to it by the public. Even in the middle of the plague the government had to fund the research to cure it. Was there not enough of a profit motive for big pharma to fund it before the plague? Would it have been great to have mrna tech before it was needed? If it turned out so well for the covid vaccine why didn't the private sector fund the research into it?
Yes cost benifit, great argument. If there was an agency that could generate 3 dollars for every dollar invested should we fund that? If cold fusion only cost 100 billion we should pay that instantly. You only get to cold fusion though by spending money on thousands of lines of research that lead nowhere. One potential line is by generating the fuel in orbit useing solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere, and then bringing it down to earth. Cold fusion hasn't been developed. It's not going to be developed. It's a complete pseudoscientific scam. "Generating the fuel in orbit using solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere" is something so divorced from reality it makes me feel cruel for having vastly overestimated what I'm dealing with. Solar power is not cold fusion. Solar power is good, which makes it different than cold fusion. Solar panels create electricity, which is different than cold fusion devices, which do not create electricity, but can be measured to create electricity if you plug them into a wall outlet. Solar panels in space are good at powering things - if the things they are powering are also in space. Otherwise spending millions to billions of dollars making solar farms in orbit and beaming shit with lasers is not more efficient than just putting panels on Earth. Every cent on cold fusion is PURE waste. So the government shouldn't be the one wasting. Every cent spent on putting a solar panel in orbit and beaming the electricity can give you electricity, but is nonetheless a waste because money is limited and you can get the electricity by using the same money to put far more solar panels on the ground. mRNA vaccines for covid were something the government and pharma had no choice but to do. It's not ideal at all. Ideal would be the government having funded non-mRNA vaccine programs for SARS/coronaviruses over the previous 2 decades so we would have been at a better starting point when the pandemic broke out. As it is, they made a therapy with nonnegligible side effects that possibly cuts your chance of getting the virus in half for a few months. That's fine. And now we have it. Now we need other things. On August 09 2025 16:54 Acrofales wrote:
E: and I forgot to connect this back to mRNA research. Do I think public funding is needed for mRNA vaccine research? I don't know. I am not a medical researcher. Nor are you, Sermokala, and most importantly, nor is RFK. Mostly public funding is approved or denied by a panel of established researchers who evaluate the project based on a number of criteria. Some of those criteria are political, but I can't think of any other bans on the use of technology for idealist reasons. The only one that springs to mind was W's ban on stemcell research. And it was criticized by many many people, including myself, at the time. But at least the ethical argument was clear at the time. That argument doesn't even exist in the case of mRNA vaccines. It is a ban based on RFK's personal dislike of the topic. And that is not a reason funding should be cut. You are appealing to an authority on the basis of their imaginarily unassailable integrity as being part of the system. A researcher will always be biased towards research. A rocket scientist will always be biased towards rockets. A bridge builder will always be biased towards bridges. That's fine but there's a limit when spending someone else's money. So who watches the researchers? Oversight? HHS is the system. RFK is the expert. You don't have the luxury of saying you're just a layman, you have the obligation to listen to what a government agency says and then learn actually more about it. Because it's not a "personal dislike" by him it's a determination by multiple people that they are not good enough for public money to continue to pursue when it comes to respiratory viruses. Put it this way, the $500 million covers 22 mRNA vaccine programs for respiratory viruses. Why couldn't we get away with 21 before? Why would 23 be superfluous? They would have to sell it cheap, because they are not going to be able to stop other countries from just copying the cure and running with it because they ask nicely. People aren't going to just take "well you're too poor for the cancer shot we can make easily for everyone so I guess you just die" well. It would be one shot. You get a talored shot of a disease that is reprogrammed to train your body to make white blood cells that kill your specific cancer. It was cheap, hes not a rich person, and it is mass reproducible because the process of getting the specific cancer sequence, then sticking it into a few machines to get the proper shot, to getting it injected is really strightforward. You get a sample of the cancer, you put it into a sequencing machine (that has advanced beacuse of covid to the point where random hospitols can have one on standby) You take that sequence and you reprogram a weakened culture of a disease you keep on standby cheap. Its a medical treatement, It would be like saying you can't mass produce glasses beacuse of how different different eye perscriptions are. Yet zenni has them cheap beacuse the technology has developed. It was cheap for him, cool. Was he in a trial? Covered by insurance? Ozempic is mass produced. That doesn't mean it's cheap. That's what has made the market value the company so much more. Notice you don't see Johnson&Johnson making Ozempic. Countries can use emergency health declarations to skirt IP restrictions and make generics of drugs. But when they do that, they can get retaliated against in other ways. And the justification doesn't exist in the case of cancer because cancer is not an infectious disease the way for example HIV pandemics can need emergency intervention. Curing cancer is lucrative. The reason cancer is uncured is not that curing it is too cheap. Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:
Again you don't know how MRNA works beacuse the same process that made the covid vaccine that worked so well is the one that made the cancer shots work. Trying to play footsie with what exactly you're cutting research dollars to is meaningless when the money for cancer Mrna research isn't being increased. The Machines and process's to make covid shots is the same as making cancer shots, beacuse its the same technology. I'm going to agree with BlackJack on this, you've told us a cheap one shot cure for cancer already exists and your uncle is living proof so it's really making me not understand why further public research is urgent or warranted. Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:
The government literally can't fund simple research. It has to fund the obscure and theoretical in order to create the foundations for everything that comes next. Private companies aren't going to handle the logistics of getting every single strain of a plant, cataloging them, and testing all their properties. Cargill comes at the end where they say "hey this strain is good lets make tons of these". Dwarf wheat didn't cost a half a billion, getting to where they can discover it cost half a billion. The "obscure and theoretical" is "simple" because it's not a billions of dollars megaproject. It's low risk, low cost, unclear if any reward, and you mass saturate thousands of poor scientists working in different directions. It is obnoxious you fucking arguing with me about something we already agreed on just because I expressed the same idea with a different word. Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:
Oil is not gasoline, there are tons of process's and fuels needed to power the transision between oil and all the products that come from it. Solar energy is really cheap to use in space, so you would be able to use the kinds of high energy process's needed to convert materials into other materials to make the energy on earth. Do you know how heavy or how much nuclear fuel goes into an actual nuclear reactor? Spending money researching higher physics and new energy sources is how we got solar panals. This inane idea that any money spent learning new things is a waste is madness. How do you think anything you are useing right now was created? Do you think that private industry made the internet? Do you think the people who invented the smartphone didn't have gigantic ammounts of state funded research that they had to base all their creations off of? How do you think the world works? Oil is not gasoline he tells me. Solar energy is cheap to use in space, yes. It's also cheap to use on Earth. However, we are on Earth, and the cost of going to space is expensive. For the internet, Al Gore may have invented it, but since then the vast majority of money that has gone into developing the internet has been private. Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:
This inane idea that any money spent learning new things is a waste is madness. Yes. Let's deport anyone who believes it. I will go directly to you if I see someone make that argument. Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:
The government made a choice, they could have made other choices. We were researching covid/SARS for a while before this, which is why we knew it could be done if we just threw tons of cash. Do you think someone walked into Trumps office and just convicned everyone to throw all that money into a random ass science experiment beacuse they just assumed it was going to work? Again your definition of "worked" is a treatment that might halve your chance of a specific strain of covid for a few months after you get it. That's what we have. You are arguing that the mRNA respiratory virus research public backing disappearing is harmful to cancer dreams because it's parallel, and synergistic with, mRNA cancer research. That's fine, except this is the Health and Human Services Department, not the Do Everything And Everything To Fix Cancer Department. There are better ways to research new avenues to prevent and treat respiratory viruses. You are ignoring the whole point and putting cancer first because of personal reasons, even though the specifically cancer stuff is unaffected. As a country we want to develop novel methods for respiratory viruses, including to lead and share with the whole world, and your #1 priority is no keep this one it might kind of help with cancer too because the hospitals will already have bought the machines. Meanwhile respiratory viruses are in the lurch because mRNA isn't getting any better because, to put it as simply as possible, essentially, you get the mRNA shot in your arm, but you don't get infected with coronavirus through the arms. It is a fundamental constraint. Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:
You try to trash someone else for appealing to authority when you think the brain worm guy is the expert we should be trusting? The guy who sawed off a fish head, and then tied it to his cars roof? The guy who was going to eat a bear cub before just dumping it in the middle of a park? The guy fired the people who made the decision to go with 500 million and those 22 programs. We were literally listening to them when that was made, now we've got a guy who said no I sure know better and seed oils are bad somehow. The guy with brain worms as you say doesn't think solar panels in orbit are efficient at making fuel for cold fusion because there's no atmospheric interference. He fired the people on ACIP, but the 22 mRNA programs at issue were under BARDA, which is about development. They recommended bailing out of the research. They're different parts of HHS. HHS by the way was very compartmentalized and inefficient when RFK took it over. That's why you get problems like redundant missions and opposing interests and lack of intercommunication among parts of it. You shouldn't trust any experts. But you have to accept that if they do something, with a reason, you have to address the reason and not just rehash their whole life every single time they do something. You have to fundamentally move on from the fact they had a parasite once in their personal medical history. Or you have to fundamentally move on from the fact that they shared classified information within their power with someone once 8 years ago. Otherwise you just can't function.
Ozempic is very cheap compared to the other options for what it did. Killing Diabedes like that and providing weight loss are big value and the cost of them is much less than the other options available to do what it does.
Cancer has been cured in a lot of people, its very expensive, It requires a lot of medications but it has been cured in the past. About 10 Million people die every year from Cancer. A lot more people have died from cancer than covid. Tuberculosis killed more people than anything ever, and no one was able to keep it under wraps beacuse they all wanted it. I don't know why someone has to explain how science works to you but simply, if one person figures out this is possible, other people will find other ways to do the same thing.
If we can cure cancer reliably useing mRNA diseases we can use it to cure other things potentially. It potentially is a vessel to get to real gene therapy. We've only been able to make it work on a few types of cancer but theres no reason to doubt that it can be used for all cancers and to go many steps furthur.
With the clear example of how fast it was utilized to fight covid the obvious reason is the ability to deploy the technology for any future plague. Instead of going through waves of the disease we can use the live culture bio-labs for every disease and have ready made vaccines for everything just waiting for mass production at the drop of a hat. Not having any creativity or curisoity about where science can go next isn't an argument for not doing anymore science. You are directly trying to argue "gee it worked in this one case lets never fund or follow it up again".
What we have is the ability to talor make a covid vaccine to a specific new varient of it and spool up boosters for that variant faster than we've ever been able to do before. This vaccine, being able to do what every vaccine does, gives you a much better defence against the disease by produceing white blood cells to fight it.
I'm not "putting cancer first beacuse personal reasons" I'm putting the technology thats shown promise first. I'm putting the thing that the department had done before Biden was in office first. We have every reason to believe that covid could come back in a brand new varient that brings back the bad old days. Or something new will come out of the forrests in the same way. You know who should decide these things? The scientists and committees that we've trusted to do it, not political appointees that think vaccines cause austism or that seed oil is bad.
You don't just get the COVID-19 vaccine through the arm, that's silly man where would you get that idea. There were many different delivery vectors developed and just like you found with the shot of it that my uncle got you can get it up your genitals.
You should trust experts, you have to trust experts. The same way you trust that your computer will turn on and not explode, the same way that the fuel you put in your car won't cause it to explode, the same way you trust the food you eat and the water you drink won't kill you. You trust experts on thousands of things a day.
RFK is not a trustworthy person and isn't intelligent about anything. I can rehash his backstory and keep providing new examples of why hes not a person to trust on anything Medical. Hes got a bachalor of arts, a law degree and an American History and literature degree. Hes the type of person you would hate if he wasn't agreeing with you. RFK jr is asking you to trust him, and there is no reason to trust him.
|
On August 10 2025 13:43 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 13:35 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 13:02 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2025 12:43 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 12:39 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2025 12:27 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 09:39 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2025 05:05 Sermokala wrote:On August 09 2025 23:35 oBlade wrote:On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
Yeah its the only one he got. Why would you think that he was the only one who would receive the treatment? Do you think that there wouldn't be other lives saved through the advancement of mrna shots? My uncle isn't rich or exceptional, but he was able to get a genetically tailored shot of tuberculosis that killed his cancer cells really well. If the funding didn't go through he would have to get radiation therapty and other worse treatments.
Curing cancer through one shot is less profitable than a series of treatments. Yes, it would be less profitable to cure cancer quickly instead of slowly over time. Why would a company be worth trillions of dollars if it only sells a cheap cure to a problem? If the government funds this research instead of a Pharma company that means that the patent can be used for the public good so we can have that cheap cure instead of an expensive series of treatments. You have assumed for some reason that the one company with the competitive advantage of a cancer cure that was probably expensive to research would sell it cheap, and also that the cure is one shot. I have no idea why you have assumed that. Your uncle's targeted therapy was probably not cheap, and it's not mass producible because his cancer and everyone's cancer are different. If a company had a "cure" for cancer, either one-size or individually tailored, they would profit off it. Either could be more expensive than the other, but either way they would drive down the cost of competing alternative treatments. Cancer sees no respite from this by the way as it's mRNA programs for respiratory viruses that are being phased out. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Its exactly what you were arguing. If the government doesn't fund a line of R&D that doesn't show profitability, a private company won't pay for it either. It deserves public dollars beacuse it potentially can be something. The greatest innovations and leaps in science come from public funding of things that don't make sense for a private business to fund. Dwarf wheat, or what you think wheat is, only was discovered to be so good beacuse some random guy was testing every kind of wheat he could find to see what would work best. If you have Cargill funding this research, this technology never makes it to India and pakistan, after Dwarf wheat spread to the subcontinent the wars between them stopped. Yes, the government should fund broad simple research that isn't directly investible or translatable as a big project. Dwarf wheat didn't cost half a billion. The point you're making has to face scale differences here. On August 09 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Like yeah, if you can make experiments about cold fusion the government should be putting those billiosn to it, it would make everything a lot better. thats how cold fusion has been developed so far. Mrna vaccines were only created beacuse there was such insane funding given to it by the public. Even in the middle of the plague the government had to fund the research to cure it. Was there not enough of a profit motive for big pharma to fund it before the plague? Would it have been great to have mrna tech before it was needed? If it turned out so well for the covid vaccine why didn't the private sector fund the research into it?
Yes cost benifit, great argument. If there was an agency that could generate 3 dollars for every dollar invested should we fund that? If cold fusion only cost 100 billion we should pay that instantly. You only get to cold fusion though by spending money on thousands of lines of research that lead nowhere. One potential line is by generating the fuel in orbit useing solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere, and then bringing it down to earth. Cold fusion hasn't been developed. It's not going to be developed. It's a complete pseudoscientific scam. "Generating the fuel in orbit using solar panels uninhibited by the atmosphere" is something so divorced from reality it makes me feel cruel for having vastly overestimated what I'm dealing with. Solar power is not cold fusion. Solar power is good, which makes it different than cold fusion. Solar panels create electricity, which is different than cold fusion devices, which do not create electricity, but can be measured to create electricity if you plug them into a wall outlet. Solar panels in space are good at powering things - if the things they are powering are also in space. Otherwise spending millions to billions of dollars making solar farms in orbit and beaming shit with lasers is not more efficient than just putting panels on Earth. Every cent on cold fusion is PURE waste. So the government shouldn't be the one wasting. Every cent spent on putting a solar panel in orbit and beaming the electricity can give you electricity, but is nonetheless a waste because money is limited and you can get the electricity by using the same money to put far more solar panels on the ground. mRNA vaccines for covid were something the government and pharma had no choice but to do. It's not ideal at all. Ideal would be the government having funded non-mRNA vaccine programs for SARS/coronaviruses over the previous 2 decades so we would have been at a better starting point when the pandemic broke out. As it is, they made a therapy with nonnegligible side effects that possibly cuts your chance of getting the virus in half for a few months. That's fine. And now we have it. Now we need other things. On August 09 2025 16:54 Acrofales wrote:
E: and I forgot to connect this back to mRNA research. Do I think public funding is needed for mRNA vaccine research? I don't know. I am not a medical researcher. Nor are you, Sermokala, and most importantly, nor is RFK. Mostly public funding is approved or denied by a panel of established researchers who evaluate the project based on a number of criteria. Some of those criteria are political, but I can't think of any other bans on the use of technology for idealist reasons. The only one that springs to mind was W's ban on stemcell research. And it was criticized by many many people, including myself, at the time. But at least the ethical argument was clear at the time. That argument doesn't even exist in the case of mRNA vaccines. It is a ban based on RFK's personal dislike of the topic. And that is not a reason funding should be cut. You are appealing to an authority on the basis of their imaginarily unassailable integrity as being part of the system. A researcher will always be biased towards research. A rocket scientist will always be biased towards rockets. A bridge builder will always be biased towards bridges. That's fine but there's a limit when spending someone else's money. So who watches the researchers? Oversight? HHS is the system. RFK is the expert. You don't have the luxury of saying you're just a layman, you have the obligation to listen to what a government agency says and then learn actually more about it. Because it's not a "personal dislike" by him it's a determination by multiple people that they are not good enough for public money to continue to pursue when it comes to respiratory viruses. Put it this way, the $500 million covers 22 mRNA vaccine programs for respiratory viruses. Why couldn't we get away with 21 before? Why would 23 be superfluous? They would have to sell it cheap, because they are not going to be able to stop other countries from just copying the cure and running with it because they ask nicely. People aren't going to just take "well you're too poor for the cancer shot we can make easily for everyone so I guess you just die" well. It would be one shot. You get a talored shot of a disease that is reprogrammed to train your body to make white blood cells that kill your specific cancer. It was cheap, hes not a rich person, and it is mass reproducible because the process of getting the specific cancer sequence, then sticking it into a few machines to get the proper shot, to getting it injected is really strightforward. You get a sample of the cancer, you put it into a sequencing machine (that has advanced beacuse of covid to the point where random hospitols can have one on standby) You take that sequence and you reprogram a weakened culture of a disease you keep on standby cheap. Its a medical treatement, It would be like saying you can't mass produce glasses beacuse of how different different eye perscriptions are. Yet zenni has them cheap beacuse the technology has developed. Again you don't know how MRNA works beacuse the same process that made the covid vaccine that worked so well is the one that made the cancer shots work. Trying to play footsie with what exactly you're cutting research dollars to is meaningless when the money for cancer Mrna research isn't being increased. The Machines and process's to make covid shots is the same as making cancer shots, beacuse its the same technology. The government literally can't fund simple research. It has to fund the obscure and theoretical in order to create the foundations for everything that comes next. Private companies aren't going to handle the logistics of getting every single strain of a plant, cataloging them, and testing all their properties. Cargill comes at the end where they say "hey this strain is good lets make tons of these". Dwarf wheat didn't cost a half a billion, getting to where they can discover it cost half a billion. Oil is not gasoline, there are tons of process's and fuels needed to power the transision between oil and all the products that come from it. Solar energy is really cheap to use in space, so you would be able to use the kinds of high energy process's needed to convert materials into other materials to make the energy on earth. Do you know how heavy or how much nuclear fuel goes into an actual nuclear reactor? Spending money researching higher physics and new energy sources is how we got solar panals. This inane idea that any money spent learning new things is a waste is madness. How do you think anything you are useing right now was created? Do you think that private industry made the internet? Do you think the people who invented the smartphone didn't have gigantic ammounts of state funded research that they had to base all their creations off of? How do you think the world works? The government made a choice, they could have made other choices. We were researching covid/SARS for a while before this, which is why we knew it could be done if we just threw tons of cash. Do you think someone walked into Trumps office and just convicned everyone to throw all that money into a random ass science experiment beacuse they just assumed it was going to work? You try to trash someone else for appealing to authority when you think the brain worm guy is the expert we should be trusting? The guy who sawed off a fish head, and then tied it to his cars roof? The guy who was going to eat a bear cub before just dumping it in the middle of a park? The guy fired the people who made the decision to go with 500 million and those 22 programs. We were literally listening to them when that was made, now we've got a guy who said no I sure know better and seed oils are bad somehow. Having just been called a liar for saying I've met people with neopronouns, I feel entitled to turn around and question the story of "my uncle got a cheap mRNA shot that cured his cancer." I feel like cheap mRNA shot that cures cancer would have at least made a blurb on my news feed. I tried googling your claim using the clue that it came from a "genetically tailored shot of TB" and I came up with this A modified tuberculosis (TB) vaccine, developed from the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine, is showing promise as a treatment for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer with potentially fewer side effects. This modified vaccine, developed by Texas Biomed, removes specific lipids from the BCG bacteria, aiming to reduce inflammation while still triggering an effective immune response. BCG is typically administered directly into the bladder through a catheter after the tumor has been removed. The treatment aims to stimulate the body's immune system to attack and destroy any remaining cancer cells That sounds like what you're talking about except you're calling it an "mRNA shot" for some unknown reason. I'm all for developing mRNA technology, but I think your claim needs revision. Is your problem me using a descriptive name for the technology? I'm calling it an mRNA shot because its a dose of a vaccine thats delivered into the body. There have been many different ways to deliver medication into the body, including various ways to deliver just the covid vaccine. Like what are you questioning exactly? You found the thing very easily and didn't even need to ask me to clarify what I was refering to. Are you confused at how expensive cancer treatments can get in america? "mRNA shot" is not some colloquial that you can apply to any vaccine that's "delivered into the body." This treatment is derived from an attenuated vaccine that has nothing to do with mRNA vaccines like the ones for COVID. In the same manner that you wouldn't call your grandfather's polio vaccine an "mRNA shot," you shouldn't call this treatment an "mRNA shot," especially in the context of why we should pursue mRNA technology. If your grandfathers polio vaccine was adjusted useing mRNA technology I would call it an mRNA shot. Are you confused about what makes mRNA technology mRNA? Like the Sequencing technology and the ability to adjust the sequences to target a response? I don't know what "adjusted using mRNA technology" means in this context and frankly I don't think you know either. Feel free to share a source explaining where exactly mRNA technology comes into play in the BCG vaccine treatment for bladder cancer but considering I don't recall ever seeing you provide a hyperlink in any of your 14,000 posts, I won't hold my breath. BJ you've never provided anyone a reason to do the effort to try and educate you on anything. You clearly have no idea what a vaccine is and now we at least know why. I would have to put in work to educate you on the basic terms of what RNA is and the machines used in sequencing. Amazing how you always seem to have the spare time to get into these long back and forths with me but the second I ask for a source on what you're saying you suddenly run out of the the patience to "educate me." Funny how that works.
Its amazing how when you ask for a source on anything or be educated on anything you try your best to be vauge and proclaim just how ignorant you are on the subject. Have you ever admited you were wrong about something or had a positive interaction with someone providing you this information?
We both know you won't acept anything given to you, we know this from your histroy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
