|
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 |
So I spent 1 minute googling it. We have multiple old TB vaccines. The new one in testing is mRNA based to improve protections for adults compared to the current versions.
So anything against TB you currently take is not mRNA based? Anything you take in 10 years is likely to be because it is better and safer?
|
On August 10 2025 13:52 oBlade 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. 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?
Thats not how vaccines work. An inactivated vaccine wouldn't provoke a response.
mRNA vaccines, just like regular vaccines, trigger a response from the body to produce white blood cells, but in this case the vaccine, useing some other disease, causes the town to provide a defence that can help it fight something completly else.
It is causing a bunch of rundown tanks to attack the village, and when the village easily defeats the tanks, they repurpose those tanks as tractors. Now, the village can work many more fields and can feed itself and the city near it. Now it would be great if we didn't have to use tanks, that we could have it attacked with something that didn't have armor, but could still be repurposed to work fields. Currently we're useing diseases that can kill the host when they're delivered into the body, beacuse thats how vaccines work, but if we could have much weaker diseases that old people could survive we can expand the use of them.
Cancer isn't a singular disease, its like the flu or the cold., and any cancer treatment has to be personalized to the person to be maximally effective. If we could get the technology to the point where every clinic could have a device to make it we could have the treatment spread out and become much more agile. One of the struggles at the start of covid was that none of the companies had live cultures of covid, they were using the old cultures of sars and other diseases they thought may be like it. If we could get a machine to sequence a virus and transmit that data back to a lab they could cook up the disease in the labs of the world to rapidly develop and test a vaccine and shorten the lead time to getting treatment.
They didn't know they were possibly going to be able to start to cure cancer when they put all that money into making a vaccine for covid. You can't know where research and technology is going to go when you're funding it.
|
On August 10 2025 14:05 Yurie wrote:
So I spent 1 minute googling it. We have multiple old TB vaccines. The new one in testing is mRNA based to improve protections for adults compared to the current versions.
So anything against TB you currently take is not mRNA based? Anything you take in 10 years is likely to be because it is better and safer?
Yes, one issue with older vaccines is that they have the effect of making you sick with the disease, which is why pregnant people can't get them. mRNA based vaccines can give you antibodies of TB and other diseases while infecting you with much less dangerous actual diseases. Currently we have the technology to give you TB, which is bad beacuse its killed more than anything else in history but you should be vaccinated against it in america.
In america you are given many small doses beacuse it is more dangerous to give you large doses of an active disease. Instead of giveing people measels for reals or chicken pox you could have them get a stomach ache, or load them up on non-drug-resistant diseases and chase the mRNA vaccines with a load of anti biotics.
|
On August 10 2025 14:17 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 14:05 Yurie wrote:
So I spent 1 minute googling it. We have multiple old TB vaccines. The new one in testing is mRNA based to improve protections for adults compared to the current versions.
So anything against TB you currently take is not mRNA based? Anything you take in 10 years is likely to be because it is better and safer? Yes, one issue with older vaccines is that they have the effect of making you sick with the disease, which is why pregnant people can't get them. mRNA based vaccines can give you antibodies of TB and other diseases while infecting you with much less dangerous actual diseases. In america you are given many small doses beacuse it is more dangerous to give you large doses of an active disease. Instead of giveing people measels for reals or chicken pox you could have them get a stomach ache, or load them up on non-drug-resistant diseases and chase the mRNA vaccines with a load of anti biotics.
I think you are wrong regarding the historical variants of vaccines. mRNA is likely to make them easier, better and faster to make though, I agree there.
https://www.aaaai.org/tools-for-the-public/conditions-library/allergies/vaccine-myth-fact
Myth: A child can actually get the disease from a vaccine.
Fact: A vaccine causing complete disease would be extremely unlikely. Most vaccines are inactivated (killed) vaccines, which makes it impossible to contract the disease from the vaccine. A few vaccines contain live organisms, and when vaccinated with live vaccines, it may lead to a mild case of the disease. Chickenpox vaccine, for example, can cause a child to develop a mild rash. This isn’t harmful, and can actually show that the vaccine is working. One exception was the live oral polio vaccine, which could very rarely mutate and actually cause a case of polio. However, the oral polio vaccine is no longer administered in the United States.
|
On August 10 2025 13:56 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 13:43 BlackJack wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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.
I think you should be grateful you're on friendly ground while you spew nonsense out of your ass, refused to source your claims, and insult people that ask for a source. I'll again make note that you have the time to insult me but you can't take 10 seconds to link a source that backs up what you're saying.
On August 10 2025 14:17 Sermokala wrote:
In america you are given many small doses beacuse it is more dangerous to give you large doses of an active disease. Instead of giveing people measels for reals or chicken pox you could have them get a stomach ache, or load them up on non-drug-resistant diseases and chase the mRNA vaccines with a load of anti biotics.
Seriously though. What the fuck are you talking about?
|
On August 10 2025 14:24 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 14:17 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 14:05 Yurie wrote:
So I spent 1 minute googling it. We have multiple old TB vaccines. The new one in testing is mRNA based to improve protections for adults compared to the current versions.
So anything against TB you currently take is not mRNA based? Anything you take in 10 years is likely to be because it is better and safer? Yes, one issue with older vaccines is that they have the effect of making you sick with the disease, which is why pregnant people can't get them. mRNA based vaccines can give you antibodies of TB and other diseases while infecting you with much less dangerous actual diseases. In america you are given many small doses beacuse it is more dangerous to give you large doses of an active disease. Instead of giveing people measels for reals or chicken pox you could have them get a stomach ache, or load them up on non-drug-resistant diseases and chase the mRNA vaccines with a load of anti biotics. I think you are wrong regarding the historical variants of vaccines. mRNA is likely to make them easier, better and faster to make though, I agree there. https://www.aaaai.org/tools-for-the-public/conditions-library/allergies/vaccine-myth-factMyth: A child can actually get the disease from a vaccine. Fact: A vaccine causing complete disease would be extremely unlikely. Most vaccines are inactivated (killed) vaccines, which makes it impossible to contract the disease from the vaccine. A few vaccines contain live organisms, and when vaccinated with live vaccines, it may lead to a mild case of the disease. Chickenpox vaccine, for example, can cause a child to develop a mild rash. This isn’t harmful, and can actually show that the vaccine is working. One exception was the live oral polio vaccine, which could very rarely mutate and actually cause a case of polio. However, the oral polio vaccine is no longer administered in the United States.
Inactive vs inactivated is an important distinction as well. That mild case or the rash can infect others with the disease, and people can't be trusted to properly quarantine children to prevent this. In order to produce an effect it inherently needs a degree of interaction which, while minimized, will always produce risk. Minimizeing that risk leads to the opertunity of vaccinating for many more diseases that don't call into the risk-reward calculus well.
Another issue is how the various diseases will interact with eachother when they're modified. If you have TB used to fight cancer but you want to cure something else, if you use TB again will it have the same effect or no? Already you have seen the mess of different hospital chains having different methodologies about cancer treatment drugs you need the research done to see if there is a disease that doesn't have an issue of repeated use.
|
On August 10 2025 14:33 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 13:56 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 13:43 BlackJack wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I think you should be grateful you're on friendly ground while you spew nonsense out of your ass, refused to source your claims, and insult people that ask for a source. I'll again make note that you have the time to insult me but you can't take 10 seconds to link a source that backs up what you're saying. Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 14:17 Sermokala wrote:
In america you are given many small doses beacuse it is more dangerous to give you large doses of an active disease. Instead of giveing people measels for reals or chicken pox you could have them get a stomach ache, or load them up on non-drug-resistant diseases and chase the mRNA vaccines with a load of anti biotics. Seriously though. What the fuck are you talking about?
Because we've done this dance BJ. I can provide a source, you dispute the source, you try to find the singular technical way you can possibly save face, and it ends up as a waste of time for everyone.
You should be grateful you are on the ground that keeps treating you with good faith most of the time when you never return the favor. If you would like someone to provide a source for something you need to 1. specify what exactly you are asking for and 2. show any case of trust for you to acept it. It would be worlds more effort to try and teach you basic scientific concepts only for you to find a part you refuse to understand than for any gain that has ever been gotten out of interacting with you.
And again, what part are you ignorant about? Vague posting and complaining that people don't understand you isn't how you build good will for people to do the work to help you. You've already admitted you're way over your head and don't understand anything about what we're discussing, but I can't help you unless you narrow down what exactly you want to be educated about.
|
On August 10 2025 13:55 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 12:45 oBlade 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. 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. 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.
Other people can't do the same thing if you have something legally protected by patents. They can find the way all they want but they can't take that to market except in extraordinary cases. That's why Novo Nordisk is valuable which you just understood. Now think the same thing, but for cancer. Do you even know what point you're arguing or are you just automatically saying the opposite of whatever I do?
On August 10 2025 13:55 Sermokala wrote:
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.
When you say "real gene therapy," you are alluding to the exact anti-vaxx sentiment that mRNA vaccines should be classified as gene therapy, which is something RFK is explicitly wrong about, and that for now they're a poor man's version of it. You can use mRNA to edit genes but it has nothing to do with mRNA vaccines other than the putting of mRNA into cells (so is roughly as wrong as saying spoons should be banned because they're made of metal which is what you can make guns and bullets from).
They're not gene therapy. At all. The reason mRNA vaccines aren't great is they aren't great, not that they're interfering with your DNA or are any kind of gene therapy "real" or not. And you shouldn't want "gene therapy" as an ideal goal for an infectious disease. You should want gene therapy for congenital diseases. And only for other diseases when all else has failed. We should as far as possible never mess with our own genome before mapping out all the unintended consequences.
On August 10 2025 13:55 Sermokala wrote:
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.
The more I read this of how you keep extolling what we have the more I'm lost as to what we still need.
On August 10 2025 13:55 Sermokala wrote:
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.
Let me try to put this again more simply.
The genitals can be a fine place to inject the covid vaccine.
The genitals are not where coronaviruses infect people.
mRNA vaccines provoke systemic immune responses but they are weak with the nose, throat, lungs, etc., which is where respiratory viruses specifically go. There is a limit for how much you gain from making the body of a car more bulletproof, when the windshield is normal vulnerable glass. That's why there is a ceiling for needing mRNA projects right now.
On August 10 2025 13:55 Sermokala wrote:
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.
Today you realized experts disagree with each other. One told me to use a Mac and drive an electric car and eat lots of carbs. I use a PC, drive ICE, and eat lots of fats and protein.
On August 10 2025 13:55 Sermokala wrote:
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.
I hate almost no one. RFK has never asked me anything. RFK said something and I realized it was correct. Other times RFK doesn't. I don't give a fuck about his backstory he says the sky is blue I say "duh" I don't go into a 5 hour Daily Show routine about brainworms every time he exists.
On August 10 2025 14:07 Sermokala wrote:
Thats not how vaccines work. An inactivated vaccine wouldn't provoke a response.
"Inactivated vaccine" does not mean "vaccine which is not activated" it means a vaccine that puts dead/inert germs in you. The germs are what are inactivated. Not the vaccine. Even RFK knows that.
|
On August 10 2025 14:39 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 14:33 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2025 13:56 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 13:43 BlackJack wrote: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:
[quote]
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
[quote]
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. I think you should be grateful you're on friendly ground while you spew nonsense out of your ass, refused to source your claims, and insult people that ask for a source. I'll again make note that you have the time to insult me but you can't take 10 seconds to link a source that backs up what you're saying. On August 10 2025 14:17 Sermokala wrote:
In america you are given many small doses beacuse it is more dangerous to give you large doses of an active disease. Instead of giveing people measels for reals or chicken pox you could have them get a stomach ache, or load them up on non-drug-resistant diseases and chase the mRNA vaccines with a load of anti biotics. Seriously though. What the fuck are you talking about? Because we've done this dance BJ. I can provide a source, you dispute the source, you try to find the singular technical way you can possibly save face, and it ends up as a waste of time for everyone. You should be grateful you are on the ground that keeps treating you with good faith most of the time when you never return the favor. If you would like someone to provide a source for something you need to 1. specify what exactly you are asking for and 2. show any case of trust for you to acept it. It would be worlds more effort to try and teach you basic scientific concepts only for you to find a part you refuse to understand than for any gain that has ever been gotten out of interacting with you. And again, what part are you ignorant about? Vague posting and complaining that people don't understand you isn't how you build good will for people to do the work to help you. You've already admitted you're way over your head and don't understand anything about what we're discussing, but I can't help you unless you narrow down what exactly you want to be educated about.
Nah we've never done this dance before because you've never sourced anything you say. If you want we can sit down and go through your last 500 posts and see how many sources you've offered for anything but I'm willing to bet I can count them on one hand, if that. "My uncle was cured of cancer with an mRNA shot" might be the best evidence you've brought to any conversation.
But I'll drop it now. It's starting to feel like the preacher in the town square with a megaphone ranting about god knows what. A curiosity at first but now it's becoming a bit of a disturbance.
|
On August 10 2025 14:41 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 13:55 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 12:45 oBlade 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. No by gene therapy I'm taking a 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. 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. Other people can't do the same thing if you have something legally protected by patents. They can find the way all they want but they can't take that to market except in extraordinary cases. That's why Novo Nordisk is valuable which you just understood. Now think the same thing, but for cancer. Do you even know what point you're arguing or are you just automatically saying the opposite of whatever I do? Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 13:55 Sermokala wrote:
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. When you say "real gene therapy," you are alluding to the exact anti-vaxx sentiment that mRNA vaccines should be classified as gene therapy, which is something RFK is explicitly wrong about, and that for now they're a poor man's version of it. You can use mRNA to edit genes but it has nothing to do with mRNA vaccines other than the putting of mRNA into cells (so is roughly as wrong as saying spoons should be banned because they're made of metal which is what you can make guns and bullets from). They're not gene therapy. At all. The reason mRNA vaccines aren't great is they aren't great, not that they're interfering with your DNA or are any kind of gene therapy "real" or not. And you shouldn't want "gene therapy" as an ideal goal for an infectious disease. You should want gene therapy for congenital diseases. And only for other diseases when all else has failed. We should as far as possible never mess with our own genome before mapping out all the unintended consequences. Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 13:55 Sermokala wrote:
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. Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 13:55 Sermokala wrote:
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. Let me try to put this again more simply. The genitals can be a fine place to inject the covid vaccine. The genitals are not where coronaviruses infect people. mRNA vaccines provoke systemic immune responses but they are weak with the nose, throat, lungs, etc., which is where respiratory viruses specifically go. There is a limit for how much you gain from making the body of a car more bulletproof, when the windshield is normal vulnerable glass. That's why there is a ceiling for needing mRNA projects right now. Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 13:55 Sermokala wrote:
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. Today you realized experts disagree with each other. One told me to use a Mac and drive an electric car and eat lots of carbs. I use a PC, drive ICE, and eat lots of fats and protein. Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 13:55 Sermokala wrote:
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. I hate almost no one. RFK has never asked me anything. RFK said something and I realized it was correct. Other times RFK doesn't. I don't give a fuck about his backstory he says the sky is blue I say "duh" I don't go into a 5 hour Daily Show routine about brainworms every time he exists. Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 14:07 Sermokala wrote:
Thats not how vaccines work. An inactivated vaccine wouldn't provoke a response. "Inactivated vaccine" does not mean "vaccine which is not activated" it means a vaccine that puts dead/inert germs in you. The germs are what are inactivated. Not the vaccine. Even RFK knows that.
That's not how patents work or science. They can protect you if they copy the exact same process or formula but to get it you need to specify to the world exactly how you did the thing. People then just need to figure out how to get there In a different enough way to make a new approach legally. Companies don't patent things all the time to prevent educating their competition on their secrets.
The conspiracy theory is that the covid vaccine is the gene therapy. Not that mrna tech could be used for gene therapy.
Mrna vaccines are great, what were you told that they aren't great?
I'm glad you provided a perfect example of why we need more mRNA funding. We should figure out all the consequences and that costs money that was cut. We can get above that ceiling you speak of if we spend the money to get above it. I'm glad we saw movement here from you and we came to an agreement.
Experts can disagree, and science is how they resolve those disagreements. You have a lot of the same opinions that rfk has, and trust him when he says anything. You should trust the people with medical backgrounds when it comes to medical concepts. The whole name experts implies that they have a background on the subject that gives them the credibility as an expert.
You're useing the word wrong though and rfk is wrong on this as well. Inherently the vaccine has to produce some sort of activity within the body to produce a reaction. Rfk doesn't believe in germ theory for one and dead would imply a decay of the cells past the point of them being useful.
Its better to use the example of the nation's first vaccine mandate. George Washington forced his troops to become infected with cowpox. This was taken from material from cows, it causes soldiers to die but less than if there was an outbreak. The martial taken in this way was inactivated, but to a much lesser degree than we can do with modern science.
|
On August 10 2025 14:47 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 14:39 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 14:33 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2025 13:56 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 13:43 BlackJack wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I think you should be grateful you're on friendly ground while you spew nonsense out of your ass, refused to source your claims, and insult people that ask for a source. I'll again make note that you have the time to insult me but you can't take 10 seconds to link a source that backs up what you're saying. On August 10 2025 14:17 Sermokala wrote:
In america you are given many small doses beacuse it is more dangerous to give you large doses of an active disease. Instead of giveing people measels for reals or chicken pox you could have them get a stomach ache, or load them up on non-drug-resistant diseases and chase the mRNA vaccines with a load of anti biotics. Seriously though. What the fuck are you talking about? Because we've done this dance BJ. I can provide a source, you dispute the source, you try to find the singular technical way you can possibly save face, and it ends up as a waste of time for everyone. You should be grateful you are on the ground that keeps treating you with good faith most of the time when you never return the favor. If you would like someone to provide a source for something you need to 1. specify what exactly you are asking for and 2. show any case of trust for you to acept it. It would be worlds more effort to try and teach you basic scientific concepts only for you to find a part you refuse to understand than for any gain that has ever been gotten out of interacting with you. And again, what part are you ignorant about? Vague posting and complaining that people don't understand you isn't how you build good will for people to do the work to help you. You've already admitted you're way over your head and don't understand anything about what we're discussing, but I can't help you unless you narrow down what exactly you want to be educated about. Nah we've never done this dance before because you've never sourced anything you say. If you want we can sit down and go through your last 500 posts and see how many sources you've offered for anything but I'm willing to bet I can count them on one hand, if that. "My uncle was cured of cancer with an mRNA shot" might be the best evidence you've brought to any conversation. But I'll drop it now. It's starting to feel like the preacher in the town square with a megaphone ranting about god knows what. A curiosity at first but now it's becoming a bit of a disturbance.
I can source what I say but I'm not going to put in effort when you've constantly shown no reason to expect any return on that effort. You can't even specify what you want sourced, do you want me to list off Bible verses and go into how that supports my argument through the lens of ancient sanitary practices? Constant vague posting so you can find petty inconsistencies that you can grasp at isnt how conversation works. You said you don't understand vaccines or anything about mrna. I can't begin to help you understand a topic if you refuse to give me a starting point for how to help you. The basic expectation is that you're capable of asking for help or finding help on subjects you don't understand. Even oblade is capable of preforming Google searches and finding the sources for me to support what I'm saying.
Normal people can very easily respond simple questions with simple answers, you've shown you're incapable of that. Most people can easily specify what they're asking for when someone asks what they want. You're the type of person who goes to KFC, keeps repeating they want chicken, and then gets mad that they don't receive chicken. If you are incapable of making google searches or educating yourself on the topics you want to discuss I will genuinely apologize for my behavior. I would really love to have good conversations with you but you refuse to have them.
|
On August 10 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 14:41 oBlade wrote:On August 10 2025 13:55 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 12:45 oBlade 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. No by gene therapy I'm taking a 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. 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. Other people can't do the same thing if you have something legally protected by patents. They can find the way all they want but they can't take that to market except in extraordinary cases. That's why Novo Nordisk is valuable which you just understood. Now think the same thing, but for cancer. Do you even know what point you're arguing or are you just automatically saying the opposite of whatever I do? On August 10 2025 13:55 Sermokala wrote:
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. When you say "real gene therapy," you are alluding to the exact anti-vaxx sentiment that mRNA vaccines should be classified as gene therapy, which is something RFK is explicitly wrong about, and that for now they're a poor man's version of it. You can use mRNA to edit genes but it has nothing to do with mRNA vaccines other than the putting of mRNA into cells (so is roughly as wrong as saying spoons should be banned because they're made of metal which is what you can make guns and bullets from). They're not gene therapy. At all. The reason mRNA vaccines aren't great is they aren't great, not that they're interfering with your DNA or are any kind of gene therapy "real" or not. And you shouldn't want "gene therapy" as an ideal goal for an infectious disease. You should want gene therapy for congenital diseases. And only for other diseases when all else has failed. We should as far as possible never mess with our own genome before mapping out all the unintended consequences. On August 10 2025 13:55 Sermokala wrote:
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. On August 10 2025 13:55 Sermokala wrote:
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. Let me try to put this again more simply. The genitals can be a fine place to inject the covid vaccine. The genitals are not where coronaviruses infect people. mRNA vaccines provoke systemic immune responses but they are weak with the nose, throat, lungs, etc., which is where respiratory viruses specifically go. There is a limit for how much you gain from making the body of a car more bulletproof, when the windshield is normal vulnerable glass. That's why there is a ceiling for needing mRNA projects right now. On August 10 2025 13:55 Sermokala wrote:
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. Today you realized experts disagree with each other. One told me to use a Mac and drive an electric car and eat lots of carbs. I use a PC, drive ICE, and eat lots of fats and protein. On August 10 2025 13:55 Sermokala wrote:
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. I hate almost no one. RFK has never asked me anything. RFK said something and I realized it was correct. Other times RFK doesn't. I don't give a fuck about his backstory he says the sky is blue I say "duh" I don't go into a 5 hour Daily Show routine about brainworms every time he exists. On August 10 2025 14:07 Sermokala wrote:
Thats not how vaccines work. An inactivated vaccine wouldn't provoke a response. "Inactivated vaccine" does not mean "vaccine which is not activated" it means a vaccine that puts dead/inert germs in you. The germs are what are inactivated. Not the vaccine. Even RFK knows that. That's not how patents work or science. They can protect you if they copy the exact same process or formula but to get it you need to specify to the world exactly how you did the thing. People then just need to figure out how to get there In a different enough way to make a new approach legally. Companies don't patent things all the time to prevent educating their competition on their secrets.
Who else is making Ozempic now, Sermokala?
On August 10 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Mrna vaccines are great, what were you told that they aren't great?
What do you mean what was I told? My opinion that I originated in my own head of why they aren't great I must have said 5 times already. They are better than no vaccine. They are not great when they are strain specific, maybe cut your chance of infection by 50%, for a few months, at best, and maybe arguably everyone gets it anyway as there's no definitive backstudy because you can't control all variables to measure what vaccines and boosters people got when what variants were circulating and what variants they got infected with.
On August 10 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
Experts can disagree, and science is how they resolve those disagreements. You have a lot of the same opinions that rfk has, and trust him when he says anything. You should trust the people with medical backgrounds when it comes to medical concepts. The whole name experts implies that they have a background on the subject that gives them the credibility as an expert.
Again I don't want to go into this but since you do. RFK has read hundreds of studies, has litigated scientific cases, and now has the counsel of top people in each subfield and panels in every area of health advising him and reporting to him. He's more expert than almost anyone here. Not "right" expert (your subservient definition) but "treat seriously" expert (my definition).
On August 10 2025 15:05 Sermokala wrote:
You're useing the word wrong though and rfk is wrong on this as well. Inherently the vaccine has to produce some sort of activity within the body to produce a reaction. Rfk doesn't believe in germ theory for one and dead would imply a decay of the cells past the point of them being useful.
If bacterial cells were useful, then that would be called an "infection." Dead implies not alive. The cells in an inactivated vaccine are dead (the term is "inactivated vaccine" instead of "dead vaccine" because there are also inactivated viral vaccines, but due to the cell theory of life we have to say viruses aren't alive to begin with, so there can't be such a thing as a dead virus, so inactivated covers both cases). The immune system is not inactivated. It sees the dead bacteria and goes oh shit, let's make antibodies. The vaccine's effects are not inactivated. The pathogen is inactivated. Totally.
|
Austria4115 Posts
RKF has not "read hundreds of studies". He's about ten times less competent than... well, me for example. I'm not even remotely close to being an expert in the field that he works in. RFK is the guy around the block who sells you "alternative medicine" because he doesn't have a real degree.
He's a fraud and he's ruining America's health sector. The HHS is being destroyed by his massive idiocy. He's the Trump of the health sector. Doesn't understand squat, believes he knows everything better than everybody else, fires professionals who are doing their jobs to actually save lives, etc.
He's a fraud. He should be fired and put in jail for gross negligence.
https://blog.ucs.org/dminovi/rfk-jr-s-incompetence-is-costing-kids-lives/
|
On August 10 2025 15:11 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2025 14:47 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2025 14:39 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 14:33 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2025 13:56 Sermokala wrote:On August 10 2025 13:43 BlackJack wrote: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:
[quote]
"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. I think you should be grateful you're on friendly ground while you spew nonsense out of your ass, refused to source your claims, and insult people that ask for a source. I'll again make note that you have the time to insult me but you can't take 10 seconds to link a source that backs up what you're saying. On August 10 2025 14:17 Sermokala wrote:
In america you are given many small doses beacuse it is more dangerous to give you large doses of an active disease. Instead of giveing people measels for reals or chicken pox you could have them get a stomach ache, or load them up on non-drug-resistant diseases and chase the mRNA vaccines with a load of anti biotics. Seriously though. What the fuck are you talking about? Because we've done this dance BJ. I can provide a source, you dispute the source, you try to find the singular technical way you can possibly save face, and it ends up as a waste of time for everyone. You should be grateful you are on the ground that keeps treating you with good faith most of the time when you never return the favor. If you would like someone to provide a source for something you need to 1. specify what exactly you are asking for and 2. show any case of trust for you to acept it. It would be worlds more effort to try and teach you basic scientific concepts only for you to find a part you refuse to understand than for any gain that has ever been gotten out of interacting with you. And again, what part are you ignorant about? Vague posting and complaining that people don't understand you isn't how you build good will for people to do the work to help you. You've already admitted you're way over your head and don't understand anything about what we're discussing, but I can't help you unless you narrow down what exactly you want to be educated about. Nah we've never done this dance before because you've never sourced anything you say. If you want we can sit down and go through your last 500 posts and see how many sources you've offered for anything but I'm willing to bet I can count them on one hand, if that. "My uncle was cured of cancer with an mRNA shot" might be the best evidence you've brought to any conversation. But I'll drop it now. It's starting to feel like the preacher in the town square with a megaphone ranting about god knows what. A curiosity at first but now it's becoming a bit of a disturbance. I can source what I say but I'm not going to put in effort when you've constantly shown no reason to expect any return on that effort. You can't even specify what you want sourced, do you want me to list off Bible verses and go into how that supports my argument through the lens of ancient sanitary practices? Constant vague posting so you can find petty inconsistencies that you can grasp at isnt how conversation works. You said you don't understand vaccines or anything about mrna. I can't begin to help you understand a topic if you refuse to give me a starting point for how to help you. The basic expectation is that you're capable of asking for help or finding help on subjects you don't understand. Even oblade is capable of preforming Google searches and finding the sources for me to support what I'm saying. Normal people can very easily respond simple questions with simple answers, you've shown you're incapable of that. Most people can easily specify what they're asking for when someone asks what they want. You're the type of person who goes to KFC, keeps repeating they want chicken, and then gets mad that they don't receive chicken. If you are incapable of making google searches or educating yourself on the topics you want to discuss I will genuinely apologize for my behavior. I would really love to have good conversations with you but you refuse to have them.
I'm the one that used google to find your uncle's cancer treatment. You didn't even know what it was. You called it a "shot" when it's actually instilled into the bladder through a catheter. There's no shot involved. It's a treatment based off an attenuated vaccine but you keep calling it an mRNA shot. You don't know the difference between an attenuated vaccine and an mRNA vaccine. You said we need to develop MRNA technology so we can stop "giveing people measels for reals" and I don't know what's most atrocious about that sentence, either your spelling of "giving", your use of "for reals", or the fact that you think we give people measles with vaccines.
It's obvious you have no fucking idea what you're talking about and the gall to say you don't have the patience to educate me is the cherry on the sundae.
|
On August 09 2025 23:35 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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?
This just tells me you don't know much about the scientific community nor the way funding works. Now don't get me wrong, the system is far from perfect. But having experts evaluate what *other* experts get funding is by far the best system we've found so far. To address your specific issues:
1) Vaccine researcher's are biased toward vaccine research. Yes, obviously, but more specifically, they are biased toward their own research. They don't generally give a fuck about funding other labs and if they are asked to review a research proposal and it is bad research, these same scientists are usually the *first* to call out bad research.
2) They aren't cutting vaccine research. They are cutting specifically mRNA research. Those 500m will presumably still be spent on vaccines. Just on other types of vaccines. So vaccine researchers will still be getting the money. They'll still be reviewing proposals, just with a limitation that out of all the vaccines people might want to research, mRNA is now no longer allowed.
3) The BARDA review board is not exclusively made up of vaccine researchers. There are other medical experts there, such as epidemiologists or researchers working on cures. These, I assume you'd agree from your analogy, are not biased toward researching mRNA vaccines. Together, this committee is dedicated to finding the best way of responding to potential new epidemics. These people *are* experts, unlike me, you, Sermokala and RFK. If they think mRNA vaccines are the correct approach, we should probably trust them. Unless there's actual evidence that they are corrupt and perpetuating nonsense for the sake of a paycheck. I don't see any evidence of that.
Now onto the specifics of mRNA research. Firstly you question why 22 is the right number, and not 21 or 23. That isn't what RFK is asking though. He's asking why 22 and not 0. In either case, the answer is that the proposal review committee of BARDA looked at all the proposals they received, and scored them according to their best ability to assess how these proposals would work toward BARDA's mission. They then picked the top ones. Amongst them were apparently 22 projects to research mRNA vaccines. Not because they have a hard-on for mRNA vaccines but because it's a promising new technology that we still know less about than more established vaccine technology, so there's a lot to research; varying from preparing vaccines against various strains of bird flu, in case these jump to humans, working on making them safer (e.g. the myocarditis from the COVID vaccines), understanding whether they are just as effective in long-term protection as other vaccines, etc. etc. is 22 the right number? I don't know. I'm happy to admit that scientists are human too, and can also get taken for a ride on a hype train. Maybe the funding focused too much on mRNA vaccines, to the detriment of objectively more promising research programs in other vaccine technologies. I am absolutely not opposed to RFK ordering such a review and establishing guidelines. That isn't what he did. RFK isn't interested in the science. He has repeatedly ignored the science and is just doing whatever his brain worms tell him to do.
As for educating myself, I do. Continuously. That doesn't make me an expert. Just a well-read lay person. Anyway, here's one of the things I read about this specific topic: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly75p9yd67o.amp
And here's another one, which is entirely tangential to the use of mRNA vaccines against infectious diseases, but seeing as your dumb argument with Sermokala has been going on for pages now, I figured I'd send you both the research, so you can at least ground it in facts: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39798545/
there are multiple clinical trials all around the world testing personalised mRNA vaccines to treat cancer. It is one of the most promising new cancer treatments we have. It also has very little to do with mRNA vaccines for flu or COVID.
|
On August 10 2025 15:26 oBlade wrote:
What's your opinion on flu vaccines?
Also, I'm confused, are you suggesting only one company is making Ozempic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
