American Politics

[kkck]

To me it feels like the CA recall election was just a sham so that some folk could claim voter fraud. Sure, recall elections are fairly common but given the state of politics in the US it feels like the purpose is simply to erode democracy at this point.

 

[M3J]

Yep, I found it fishy that they had a recall election, but they probably thought they'd win. Or they likely thought they'd lose and try to use that to get more votes or support somehow for the midterms and/or next presidential election. It was such a waste of taxpayer money

 

[kkck]

Yep, I found it fishy that they had a recall election, but they probably thought they'd win. Or they likely thought they'd lose and try to use that to get more votes or support somehow for the midterms and/or next presidential election. It was such a waste of taxpayer money

From what I've read there usually are recall elections in CA, partly because the standard for a recall is very low. Pretty much every governor has had them. And for some reason this one got a lot of attention. And there was the extra layer of voter fraud claims from before the votes were even counted..

 

[M3J]

Then the attention it got is fishy, but probably because of covid and all.

 

[SonOfDaws]

There's a lot of fishy stuff going on, but I don't think the possibility that Larry Elder, someone who isn't a career politician and likely is incurring significant personal expense, ran in a recall election to lose is the biggest or fishiest story out there.

Anthony Fauci's deception or outright lies about his and the NIAID funding gain of function, lies about mask effectiveness and need, lying about herd immunity numbers, and lying about the origin of the virus (talked about the strong evidence of lab altercations in emails while pushing natural origins in the public). Despite all this Fauci is using the pandemic he indirectly funded through gain of function research to push for more gain of function research and claim that criticisms of him are somehow attacks on "science". Still, the White House defends the known, admitted, and frequent lying public health official.

Then there's Joe Biden's call with the Afghan president asking the so-called leader to pretend to have a plan after the US pulls out all the while Biden is publicly trying to boast a strong pullout game.

The suppression of the Hunter Biden stories including his shady dealings to get shady people to meet with his father Joe Biden. Of course, there's also the FBI investigation (so-called) into Hunter Biden's laptop that allegedly had child pornography on it. That's not even the only FBI child pornography cover-up story that's in the news right now either.

Olympian McKayla Maroney's completely unrelated testimony is states that she had filed a detailed report to the FBI about known child predator and molester, Larry Nassar, and that report got belittled to victim by the FBI official handling it, shelved for over a year while Nassar was able to hurt dozens of more children before the report was even processed, and then the statements were also allegedly falsified once the report was finally taken seriously.

Entrapment also seems to be on the FBI list of deeds for the taxpayers as seen with the Whittmer kidnapping plot, among others.

Then Biden's attempt at a coronavirus vaccine & booster mandate royal decree despite FDA DISAPPROVAL, very weak booster effectiveness shown in Israel, CDC using misleading numbers for vaccine effectiveness (looking at the % of deaths that were unvaccinated before vaccines were even available to the general public), and, as of recently, even the FDA doesn't even approve of the mandate and they have a financial interest to be all for the vaccines.

Meanwhile, pfizer executives have been talking about moving from a pandemic to an endemic, how much money they can make off the vaccines, "booster ability", and shooting up the prices on the vaccines once the virus is endemic. Translation, the vaccines and boosters that places are trying to mandate and that have waning effectiveness are being made by corporations for profit despite being paid for via taxpayer dollars, our money. These people have no interest on helping people or getting rid of the virus to get back to normal lives: They want us, the general public, in a position, an endemic in this case, where money can be farmed from people as long as they can manage.

That is nothing new. The same is being done in the pharmaceuticals industry, in Afghanistan, and most other big industries. The big issue and difference here is that the healthcare industry (vaccines development included) and the war industrial complex is being propped up by corrupt politicians, unelected officials, taxpayer dollars, and the lives of ordinary soldiers and citizens.

These are crucial stories, but I'm not seeing much talk of them here now. Are people just not hearing about these stories?

 

[xi0]

Meanwhile, pfizer executives have been talking about moving from a pandemic to an endemic, how much money they can make off the vaccines, "booster ability", and shooting up the prices on the vaccines once the virus is endemic. Translation, the vaccines and boosters that places are trying to mandate and that have waning effectiveness are being made by corporations for profit despite being paid for via taxpayer dollars, our money. These people have no interest on helping people or getting rid of the virus to get back to normal lives: They want us, the general public, in a position, an endemic in this case, where money can be farmed from people as long as they can manage.

I personally don't think any of these business should have been allowed to have a patent on the vaccines they developed, but "getting rid of the virus" is something outside of anyone's control. Pandemic becoming endemic seems to be a natural progression. The only disease humans have ever completely eradicated was smallpox and that's mainly because of three reasons -

1. the vaccine was 95% effective at preventing infection as well as being effective as a therapeutic treatment after exposure
2. vaccinations were mandated by the government and this was reinforced by a Supreme Court ruling
3. the virus that causes the disease is only transmissible between humans.

Honestly, these corporations disgust me, but talking about the potential future of the disease and profitability is not the same thing as acting only in the interest of profit.

 

[kkck]

IMO the US government has failed a decent bit with this whole booster shot thing. It's clear they are pushing this for polling points rather than because there is any science out there that actually supports this. This is clear political chicanery over science. I can understand the concern over variants but if variants are a thing then the issue is when vaccines that are effective against those will be a thing. Just as they do with flu vaccines every year.

 

[SonOfDaws]

I personally don't think any of these business should have been allowed to have a patent on the vaccines they developed, but "getting rid of the virus" is something outside of anyone's control. Pandemic becoming endemic seems to be a natural progression. The only disease humans have ever completely eradicated was smallpox and that's mainly because of three reasons -

1. the vaccine was 95% effective at preventing infection as well as being effective as a therapeutic treatment after exposure
2. vaccinations were mandated by the government and this was reinforced by a Supreme Court ruling
3. the virus that causes the disease is only transmissible between humans.

Honestly, these corporations disgust me, but talking about the potential future of the disease and profitability is not the same thing as acting only in the interest of profit.

Yeah, it was apparent early on that the virus' transmission was far too easy to be completely eradicated and there's evidence in the lasting, endemic presence of sicknesses with similar transmission methods like the flu and common cold, however, the narrative being pushed is in fact that this is going to be over and done with so we can all "get back to normal". Pfizer was well aware of this and that was clear from their transcripts from months ago and the CDC was aware of this and that's why they kept using the faulty vaccinated vs unvaccinated rates that were months out of date.

As for the corporations, what they talk about and how they talk about it tells us about their mindset and that focus wasn't on the effectiveness of the vaccines or how they can better respond and help people during the pandemic and it certainly wasn't about getting things "back to normal". Their focus is own the opportunities for profit and that mindset will undoubtedly show in the products Pfizer puts out, the US government pushes with a narrative of their own, and the taxpayers and general public pays for.

 

[xi0]

GOP posturing on this is so interesting to me. So this will lead to more bloodshed because Israel won't have the same supplies to shoot down all of those rockets and instead they'll cut it off at the source. Since when does the GOP platform consist of giving a shit about Palestinian lives? What diplomatic options are there if the status quo has to be upheld?

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 22, 2021, Original Post Date: Sep 22, 2021 ---

As for the corporations, what they talk about and how they talk about it tells us about their mindset and that focus wasn't on the effectiveness of the vaccines or how they can better respond and help people during the pandemic and it certainly wasn't about getting things "back to normal". Their focus is own the opportunities for profit and that mindset will undoubtedly show in the products Pfizer puts out, the US government pushes with a narrative of their own, and the taxpayers and general public pays for.

They're a publicly traded company and that's the system this kind of innovation exists in. There was far more obvious criticism/skepticism from even someone like Fauci regarding the widespread need for boosters.

I think if the virus is headed towards being fully endemic and if scientists were able to reliably predict that from the start I don't think it'd make vaccines and other public policy less important.

 

[SonOfDaws]

GOP posturing on this is so interesting me. So this will lead to more bloodshed because Israel won't have the same supplies to shoot down all of those rockets and instead they'll cut it off at the source. Since when does the GOP platform consist of giving a shit about Palestinian lives? What diplomatic options are there if the status quo has to be upheld?

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 22, 2021, Original Post Date: Sep 22, 2021 ---

They're a publicly traded company and that's the system this kind of innovation exists in. There was far more obvious criticism/skepticism from even someone like Fauci regarding the widespread need for boosters.

I think if the virus is headed towards being fully endemic and if scientists were able to reliably predict that from the start I don't think it'd make vaccines and other public policy less important.

I agree. Vaccines, public policy, and the like are important and that's why I think what's actually in both and the actual aims of them need careful examination.

 

[xi0]

I agree. Vaccines, public policy, and the like are important and that's why I think what's actually in both and the actual aims of them need careful examination.

What's in the vaccine needs careful examination? Not sure I'm following.

The aim seems to be to prevent infection and/or serious disease, no?

 

[M3J]

GOP posturing on this is so interesting me. So this will lead to more bloodshed because Israel won't have the same supplies to shoot down all of those rockets and instead they'll cut it off at the source. Since when does the GOP platform consist of giving a shit about Palestinian lives? What diplomatic options are there if the status quo has to be upheld?

GOP platform is all about using people they hate as agenda to throw another group they hate more under the bus. They hate women but not as much as Muslims, so they'll pretend to care about women and use Muslims' actions towards women as a way to spread Islamophobic rhetoric... despite the fact that they're trying to take away women's rights to their bodies.

 

[SonOfDaws]

What's in the vaccine needs careful examination? Not sure I'm following.

The aim seems to be to prevent infection and/or serious disease, no?

Well, the J&J cultivates the virus used for their vaccine in "cloned"(grown) aborted fetus cells while Pfizer and Moderna use those aborted fetus cells for testing their vaccines... So, there's that.

However, ethical questions about the development and testing of the main three vaccines being promoted aside, we also have to keep in mind that whatever is in the vaccines and no matter how they were developed has been developed in a manner that wanes in effectiveness over a relatively short period of time, is made for a very narrow use (primarily only for the alpha variant), are made using an experimental synthesis method that we don't know the long-term effects of, and, no matter what all the details are about the effectiveness and content, the vaccines are being made by corporations with powerful and plentiful financial incentive to NOT provide any permanent cures as that is directly eliminating the need for more future purchases of their taxpayer funded product in the future.

So, no, if the other vaccine developing corporations are anything like Pfizer (and they are), then they are financially disincentived to completely prevent serious illness but are financially incentived to provide products that are only effective enough to keep buyers coming back.

 

[xi0]

Well, the J&J cultivates the virus used for their vaccine in "cloned"(grown) aborted fetus cells while Pfizer and Moderna use those aborted fetus cells for testing their vaccines... So, there's that.

However, ethical questions about the development and testing of the main three vaccines being promoted aside, we also have to keep in mind that whatever is in the vaccines and no matter how they were developed has been developed in a manner that wanes in effectiveness over a relatively short period of time, is made for a very narrow use (primarily only for the alpha variant), are made using an experimental synthesis method that we don't know the long-term effects of, and, no matter what all the details are about the effectiveness and content, the vaccines are being made by corporations with powerful and plentiful financial incentive to NOT provide any permanent cures as that is directly eliminating the need for more future purchases of their taxpayer funded product in the future.

So, no, if the other vaccine developing corporations are anything like Pfizer (and they are), then they are financially disincentived to completely prevent serious illness but are financially incentived to provide products that are only effective enough to keep buyers coming back.

I don't really see what ethical question that poses in all honesty. They're cells. Is stem cell therapy something not worth pursuing either? Medicine designed for humans need to use human cell lines at some point in development.

The mRNA platform was designed for rapid rollout to fight new viruses though, so if the vaccine is safe and effective (the FDA has approved it, while not doing the same for additional boosters mind you), the idea that it could be used against a variant that the original is no longer clinically effective against is not really a negative? So I guess you could say this situation definitely benefits those that would be producing the vaccine, but is that not what they're in the business of doing? The vaccine has no value because it doesn't offer lifetime protection?

The notion that Big Pharma isn't really motivated to "cure" conditions over just treating/managing them since it'll be worth less money is not necessarily without merit, but I think the nature of COVID and other highly infectious respiratory viruses is different compared to something like cancer or other chronic diseases.

 

[SonOfDaws]

I don't really see what ethical question that poses in all honesty. They're cells. Is stem cell therapy something not worth pursuing either? Medicine designed for humans need to use human cell lines at some point in development.

The mRNA platform was designed for rapid rollout to fight new viruses though, so if the vaccine is safe and effective (the FDA has approved it, while not doing the same for additional boosters mind you), the idea that it could be used against a variant that the original is no longer clinically effective against is not really a negative? So I guess you could say this situation definitely benefits those that would be producing the vaccine, but is that not what they're in the business of doing? The vaccine has no value because it doesn't offer lifetime protection?

The notion that Big Pharma isn't really motivated to "cure" conditions over just treating/managing them since it'll be worth less money is not necessarily without merit, but I think the nature of COVID and other highly infectious respiratory viruses is different compared to something like cancer or other chronic diseases.

Anything that is produced and sold using something or someone has financial investment and incentive in them and in having cheaper access to them and killed babies are no exception. The ironic part is that innocent lives don't even have to be taken for stem cells to be collected and umbilical cord blood from when babies are born are big sources of stem cells as well, among others.

Vaccines have value and so does stem cell research, but ill-gotten gains can be reaped in every field and industry too. Long term success needs a strong, ethical foundation or else the faults will lead to cracks and those cracks will lead to crumbling human endeavors.

 

[kkck]

To be, er, roughly specific (I am going by memory so fell free to fact check me) the cells used for vaccine development comes from aborted fetuses from way back in the 70s or 80s. The cells were modified, mutated or something to that effect which has allowed them to survive this long to be used for research and development, primarily for testing vaccines. So at least to the best of my knowledge vaccines do not contain these cells. These cells are pretty much lab grown at this point.

 

[SonOfDaws]

To be, er, roughly specific (I am going by memory so fell free to fact check me) the cells used for vaccine development comes from aborted fetuses from way back in the 70s or 80s. The cells were modified, mutated or something to that effect which has allowed them to survive this long to be used for research and development, primarily for testing vaccines. So at least to the best of my knowledge vaccines do not contain these cells. These cells are pretty much lab grown at this point.

Roughly accurate and good on you for knowing about the background. I believe the abortion(s) took place in 1972 and/or 1973.

However, this still doesn't change the fact that it is an innocent human that was farmed (and corpse desecrated), there's numerous alternatives to it, and, no matter how far back it was, they are still normalizing and financially investing in the ill-gotten gains from the murder of an innocent baby for profit.

 

[xi0]

Anything that is produced and sold using something or someone has financial investment and incentive in them and in having cheaper access to them and killed babies are no exception. The ironic part is that innocent lives don't even have to be taken for stem cells to be collected and umbilical cord blood from when babies are born are big sources of stem cells as well, among others.

Vaccines have value and so does stem cell research, but ill-gotten gains can be reaped in every field and industry too. Long term success is needs a strong, ethical foundation or else the faults will lead to cracks and those cracks will lead to crumbling human endeavors.

Yes there is definitely incentive involved, but what are you trying to say? That the scientists working for these companies aren't being allowed to make the best possible vaccine they could possibly make?

They're made from fetal cells from abortions that happened 50+ years ago, which weren't done for the express purpose of medical research, they were donated. The alternative to using cultures from these already existing cell lines to develop vaccines for multiple diseases is using cells from other mammals which may not result in the same kind of effectiveness. We're talking about millions of deaths prevented and billions of infections. So I have to ask again, what kind of ethical question does this actually pose?

I mean, the irony that stands out here to me is that the situation as you've chosen to describe it is happening and enabled by capitalism. But obviously conservatives don't tend to enjoy that kind of conversation.

 

[kkck]

Roughly accurate and good on you for knowing about the background. I believe the abortion(s) took place in 1972 and/or 1973.

However, this still doesn't change the fact that it is an innocent human that was farmed (and corpse desecrated), there's numerous alternatives to it, and, no matter how far back it was, they are still normalizing and financially investing in the ill-gotten gains from the murder of an innocent baby for profit.

Desecrated is.. exaggerated. Medicine has been using corpses for research for hundreds of years. So even if your stance is that every abortion is murder there is still no difference between an aborted fetus and a regular corpse. That specific bit shouldn't be the issue here. A number of vaccines have been developed using fetal cell lines which originated from those fetuses' in the 70s since then so it's fairly clear science is in no way being obstructed by these. Even if you have some objection to this specific cell lines.... the best case scenario would be something like using other fetal cell lines with different background, assuming that's possible. Which ends up seeming nickpicky and annoying at best.

 

[xi0]

Desecrated is.. exaggerated. Medicine has been using corpses for research for hundreds of years. So even if your stance is that every abortion is murder there is still no difference between an aborted fetus and a regular corpse. That specific bit shouldn't be the issue here. A number of vaccines have been developed using fetal cell lines which originated from those fetuses' in the 70s since then so it's fairly clear science is in no way being obstructed by these. Even if you have some objection to this specific cell lines.... the best case scenario would be something like using other fetal cell lines with different background, assuming that's possible. Which ends up seeming nickpicky and annoying at best.

I mean, yeah. If you want to drop the sensationalized aspect here... there's no difference between these two scenarios -

1. A person dies in a freak accident and has no living will, their family donates their remains to medical research
2. An abortion takes place because abortion is legal and in a free society we value body autonomy, the woman donates the fetus to medical research

Previous bans on fetal tissue research are utterly pointless. Why? Because if your stance on fetal tissue research is informed by your stance on abortion, a ban on the use of it in medical research has zero effect on abortions that take place. No one changed their mind about getting an abortion because it couldn't be used in stem cell research or vaccine research.