NBA protocols/Covid/Vaccine - Discussion thread

[Zenzibar]

Read on Twitter

also
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/merck-price-gouging-taxpayer-funded-covid-drug/

The New Jersey-based pharmaceutical giant Merck is facing accusations of price gouging after it charged the U.S. over $700 per patient for a taxpayer-funded coronavirus treatment that, according to research, costs just $17.74 to produce.

Last week, Merck announced plans to request emergency federal authorization for molnupiravir after a late-stage clinical trial showed that a five-day course of the antiviral drug cut the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization or death in half in patients with mild-to-moderate cases.

The same day Merck unveiled the results of the trial and White House officials hailed the drug as another possible tool against COVID-19, the New York Times reported that “the federal government has placed advance orders for 1.7 million courses of treatment, at a price of about $700 per patient” — far more than the estimated cost of manufacturing the drug.

According to an analysis by Melissa Barber of Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health and Dzintars Gotham of King’s College Hospital in London, “the cost of production for molnupiravir capsules is U.S. $1.74 per unit, or U.S. $17.74 per five-day regimen.”

[FNQ]

Yes, if Covid vaccines were somehow proof against death and illness in general I rather think even libertarians might be demanding vaccination. The fact that vaccination doesn't provide such protection would hardly seem to necessitate a cover up.

There is an extremely stupid politician in Australia who has a seat in parliament because he stood as a candidate for one of the major parties, who resigned from the party, but not from the parliament of course. He is running on a VAERS/Ivermectin platform next election funded by a well known shady businessman. I should have realised he is too stupid to have even come up with the nonsense he spouts on his own, It now becomes clear that the personal research he claims to have done to form his conclusions was reading US conspiracy sites. He is in the habit of arguing with the authors of papers he claims to have 'researched' about what their papers say. Of course conclusions can be disputed, but he tries to make their actual data fit his conspiracy theories.

[michaelm]

No, polio vaccines and their possible adverse effects have been studied and vetted for over 50 years. They also provide actual immunity.

Are you going to answer my question?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)"strongly recommends COVID-19 vaccination before, during or after pregnancy. Pregnant or recently pregnant people are at an increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19. Additionally, pregnant people with COVID-19 have a higher risk of delivering prematurely."

Those sound like good reasons to me, though I'm sure you'll have some wacko with an off-the-wall study that shows they shouldn't.

And polio vaccines can have serious side effects when polio has been all but eliminated in this country. Why don't you want to remove the vaccine mandate for children?

We just had born a beautiful healthy baby girl in the family. The mother's pediatrician did not recommend the vaccine for the mother. But you do.....

A discussion definitely exists in regard to the necessity for vaccination of children and I extremely doubt vaccination of children is being mandated anywhere. The discussion on this thread came from the other angle, a ludicrous claim based on VAERS that vaccination killed 1 in 1000 children which is incorrect.

[FNQ]

Read on Twitter

also
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/merck-price-gouging-taxpayer-funded-covid-drug/

The New Jersey-based pharmaceutical giant Merck is facing accusations of price gouging after it charged the U.S. over $700 per patient for a taxpayer-funded coronavirus treatment that, according to research, costs just $17.74 to produce.

Last week, Merck announced plans to request emergency federal authorization for molnupiravir after a late-stage clinical trial showed that a five-day course of the antiviral drug cut the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization or death in half in patients with mild-to-moderate cases.

The same day Merck unveiled the results of the trial and White House officials hailed the drug as another possible tool against COVID-19, the New York Times reported that “the federal government has placed advance orders for 1.7 million courses of treatment, at a price of about $700 per patient” — far more than the estimated cost of manufacturing the drug.

According to an analysis by Melissa Barber of Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health and Dzintars Gotham of King’s College Hospital in London, “the cost of production for molnupiravir capsules is U.S. $1.74 per unit, or U.S. $17.74 per five-day regimen.”

Quoting 1 of the disinformation dozen is just... *chefs kiss*.
They have been promoting the same handful of doctors who've been discredited, if not caught directly lying (Robert Malone makes another appearance!)

But hey, one analyst thinks that? Cool

The Merck thing is great news though. Screw those companies when they try that. And if they are sued, they will not be protected because what they are doing is effectively misconduct. So that actually is good

[xdrta+]

No, polio vaccines and their possible adverse effects have been studied and vetted for over 50 years. They also provide actual immunity.

Are you going to answer my question?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)"strongly recommends COVID-19 vaccination before, during or after pregnancy. Pregnant or recently pregnant people are at an increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19. Additionally, pregnant people with COVID-19 have a higher risk of delivering prematurely."

Those sound like good reasons to me, though I'm sure you'll have some wacko with an off-the-wall study that shows they shouldn't.

And polio vaccines can have serious side effects when polio has been all but eliminated in this country. Why don't you want to remove the vaccine mandate for children?

We just had born a beautiful healthy baby girl in the family. The mother's pediatrician did not recommend the vaccine for the mother. But you do.....

No, the CDC does, which seems like good advice. I'm glad you're family is happy, but anecdotes are not data.

[ZB9]

Read on Twitter

?s=21

Read on Twitter

?s=21

Read on Twitter

?s=21

Read on Twitter

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Strike: Trolling/Misinformation

[FNQ]

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-ron-johnson-us-does-not-have-approved-comirnaty-pfizer-vaccine-1636455

He appeared on the same news channel a few days earlier to make a similar claim. He said: "They approved the Comirnaty version of Pfizer drugs. It's not available in the U.S. They even admit it."

The FDA states that the formulation for the EUA version of the Pfizer shot and the approved version is the same, although the two are legally distinct.

False.

The facts show that that the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID vaccine, now marketed as Comirnaty, is approved and available in the U.S.

[ZB9]

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-ron-johnson-us-does-not-have-approved-comirnaty-pfizer-vaccine-1636455

He appeared on the same news channel a few days earlier to make a similar claim. He said: "They approved the Comirnaty version of Pfizer drugs. It's not available in the U.S. They even admit it."

The FDA states that the formulation for the EUA version of the Pfizer shot and the approved version is the same, although the two are legally distinct.

False.

The facts show that that the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID vaccine, now marketed as Comirnaty, is approved and available in the U.S.

Yes exactly “the two are legally distinct.” Does the one available in the US have a liability shield? Yes or no


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[FNQ]

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-ron-johnson-us-does-not-have-approved-comirnaty-pfizer-vaccine-1636455

He appeared on the same news channel a few days earlier to make a similar claim. He said: "They approved the Comirnaty version of Pfizer drugs. It's not available in the U.S. They even admit it."

The FDA states that the formulation for the EUA version of the Pfizer shot and the approved version is the same, although the two are legally distinct.

False.

The facts show that that the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID vaccine, now marketed as Comirnaty, is approved and available in the U.S.

Yes exactly “the two are legally distinct.” Does the one available in the US have a liability shield? Yes or no


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

They are both available in the US.

For those who arent constantly lying and are actually interested why there is no liability, please read up on Alex Azar's PREP Act from 2005 which goes until 2025, which protects medical companies from litigation in the cases of emergencies, as long as there is no obvious misconduct on their end.

They both have the same protection.

They are both the same.

The difference is that the newer product is now under a different name. Any of the *exact same vaccine* that was made before being officially approved cannot legally be called that name.

Do you understand now?

[michaelm]

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-ron-johnson-us-does-not-have-approved-comirnaty-pfizer-vaccine-1636455

Yes exactly “the two are legally distinct.” Does the one available in the US have a liability shield? Yes or no


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

They are both available in the US.

For those who arent constantly lying and are actually interested why there is no liability, please read up on Alex Azar's PREP Act from 2005 which goes until 2025, which protects medical companies from litigation in the cases of emergencies, as long as there is no obvious misconduct on their end.

They both have the same protection.

They are both the same.

The difference is that the newer product is now under a different name. Any of the *exact same vaccine* that was made before being officially approved cannot legally be called that name.

Do you understand now?

You have to give credit though. He has certainly provided mountains of evidence for opposition to corona virus vaccination often being politically motivated such as deliberate misinformation from actual politicians, and for a widespread approach being to work back to non existent or misleadingly cherry picked ‘evidence’, or deliberate misinformation, to justify pre-formed conclusions.

Why do those who claim to hold a position based on high principle feel the need to mislead/invent things about vaccination to justify such a position ?.

There are 2 issues, one of which is the safety/efficacy of Covid 19 vaccines, the other whether mandates to protect the public from Covid 19 are justifiable.

[ZB9]

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-ron-johnson-us-does-not-have-approved-comirnaty-pfizer-vaccine-1636455

Yes exactly “the two are legally distinct.” Does the one available in the US have a liability shield? Yes or no


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

They are both available in the US.

That is not true lol

Why are you pushing this lie so much? EUA isnt enough?

[FNQ]

Yes exactly “the two are legally distinct.” Does the one available in the US have a liability shield? Yes or no


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

They are both available in the US.

That is not true lol

Why are you pushing this lie so much? EUA isnt enough?

Yes, it is.

The EUA applies/applied to all vaccines from Pfizer produced before official approval. These are still available to use, though that won't be the case much longer due to expiration dates.

Corminarty is the same thing but made after approval dates. It is also available.

You just need to stop lying. Like I can't even imagine what would possess someone to be as willfully ignorant and maliciously deceitful about something like this. Get help.

[ItsDanger]

The Pfizer-BioNTech (sometimes called Cominarty) vaccine has complete legal liability protection. Ivermectin that's been used for 40 years does not. Yet the latter is criticized endlessly even though it has a solid safety record in its usage. I wonder why is that?

Takes literally 2 minutes of research to figure this out

LOL, you guys are venturing into an area you know very little about. The financial risk world.

[FNQ]

The Pfizer-BioNTech (sometimes called Cominarty) vaccine has complete legal liability protection. Ivermectin that's been used for 40 years does not. Yet the latter is criticized endlessly even though it has a solid safety record in its usage. I wonder why is that?

Takes literally 2 minutes of research to figure this out

LOL, you guys are venturing into an area you know very little about. The financial risk world.

he said, with over 20 posts in the COVID thread.

Are you saying the PREP Act didnt provide the protection?

Or are you saying that unlike previous vaccines, the COVID one was deployed at an emergency level, meaning less doctor consultations, less physician oversight, and with less understanding of COVID's reaction to other pre-existing conditions which meant the government decided it more prudent to use legal guidelines of the EUA, because they could still press charges if Pfizer was found to be negligent or guilty of misconduct?

What specifically do you want to talk about, in the COVID thread, as you warn me about venturing into an area I know very little about?

[michaelm]

The Pfizer-BioNTech (sometimes called Cominarty) vaccine has complete legal liability protection. Ivermectin that's been used for 40 years does not. Yet the latter is criticized endlessly even though it has a solid safety record in its usage. I wonder why is that?

Takes literally 2 minutes of research to figure this out

LOL, you guys are venturing into an area you know very little about. The financial risk world.

Perhaps they were more inclined in an emergency to give emergency approval to something which had actually been shown to work and for which a formulation and dosage in regard to Covid 19 had been the subject of clinical trials.

Soap and water will deconstruct the virus outside the human body, I consider it unlikely that the FDA would give emergency use approval for oral or intravenous administration of same.

[ItsDanger]

Takes literally 2 minutes of research to figure this out

LOL, you guys are venturing into an area you know very little about. The financial risk world.

Perhaps they were more inclined in an emergency to give emergency approval to something which had actually been shown to work and for which a formulation and dosage in regard to Covid 19 had been the subject of clinical trials.

Soap and water will deconstruct the virus outside the human body, I consider it unlikely that the FDA would give emergency use approval for oral or intravenous administration of same.

It's acknowledged the vaccine is an open ended risk financially, hence the protection. Yet that fact is clearly buried here while others are exaggerated.

[michaelm]

LOL, you guys are venturing into an area you know very little about. The financial risk world.

Perhaps they were more inclined in an emergency to give emergency approval to something which had actually been shown to work and for which a formulation and dosage in regard to Covid 19 had been the subject of clinical trials.

Soap and water will deconstruct the virus outside the human body, I consider it unlikely that the FDA would give emergency use approval for oral or intravenous administration of same.

It's acknowledged the vaccine is an open ended risk financially, hence the protection. Yet that fact is clearly buried here while others are exaggerated.

I said perhaps, I am Australian and am indeed not informed about the legal or financial situation with the vaccine in the USA. It is approved by the FDA equivalent in Australia and I chose to be vaccinated with it prior to any mandates after ‘personal research’ of my own. The degree of opposition to the vaccine in the USA seems to be fairly unique in the world however, and the financial and legal situation might well also be unique.

I was mainly reacting to the Ivermectin angle, with an argument that the vaccine had been used clinically without sufficiently rigorous testing seemingly being run simultaneously with an argument that emergency use provisions should be applied to any treatment anyone considered might be vaguely useful without any evidence.

[michaelm]

Read on Twitter

also
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/merck-price-gouging-taxpayer-funded-covid-drug/

The New Jersey-based pharmaceutical giant Merck is facing accusations of price gouging after it charged the U.S. over $700 per patient for a taxpayer-funded coronavirus treatment that, according to research, costs just $17.74 to produce.

Last week, Merck announced plans to request emergency federal authorization for molnupiravir after a late-stage clinical trial showed that a five-day course of the antiviral drug cut the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization or death in half in patients with mild-to-moderate cases.

The same day Merck unveiled the results of the trial and White House officials hailed the drug as another possible tool against COVID-19, the New York Times reported that “the federal government has placed advance orders for 1.7 million courses of treatment, at a price of about $700 per patient” — far more than the estimated cost of manufacturing the drug.

According to an analysis by Melissa Barber of Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health and Dzintars Gotham of King’s College Hospital in London, “the cost of production for molnupiravir capsules is U.S. $1.74 per unit, or U.S. $17.74 per five-day regimen.”

Quoting 1 of the disinformation dozen is just... *chefs kiss*.
They have been promoting the same handful of doctors who've been discredited, if not caught directly lying (Robert Malone makes another appearance!)

But hey, one analyst thinks that? Cool

The Merck thing is great news though. Screw those companies when they try that. And if they are sued, they will not be protected because what they are doing is effectively misconduct. So that actually is good

I am entirely open to a suggestion that a pharmaceutical company might be price gouging, and happy for this to be investigated and for them to be taken to task/sued/whatever if this is proven to be the case, particularly if they are trying to fraudulently exploit emergency use provisions.

Again the ‘evidence’ is disingenuous though. The cost of manufacture is not the cost of production. If it is a repurposed existing drug I would be looking at what they were charging for it in the previous application, whether they had amortised the costs of developing the drug and getting approval for the previous use of the drug, what it has cost them including for clinical trials to bring the drug into use to treat Covid 19, and perhaps at the cost of investigating others of their drugs which did not prove useful. Certainly no one is getting away with charging $700- a dose for dexamethasone however.

[infinite11285]

Spoiler:

Read on Twitter

?s=21

Read on Twitter

?s=21

Read on Twitter

?s=21

Read on Twitter

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Senator Ron Johnson is the Ranking Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is the Committee’s chief investigative subcommittee and has the responsibility of studying and investigating the efficiency and economy of operations relating to all branches of the government. The Subcommittee is also tasked with studying and investigating the compliance or noncompliance with rules, regulations and laws, investigating all aspects of crime and lawlessness within the United States which have an impact upon or affect the national health, welfare and safety, includingsyndicated crime, investment fraud schemes, commodity and security fraud, computer fraud, and the use of offshore banking and corporate facilities to carry out criminal objectives.

If there was even an iota of truth to the FDA, a federal regulator under the Executive Branch, conducting an illegal "bait and switch" scheme involving the Pfizer vaccine, he would champion a full-scale investigation into the FDA, Pfizer, and possibly the President. But guess what? Senator Johnson hasn't done that. Would you like to know why? Because claims of the "bait and switch" scheme is a full-blown conspiracy that can easily be fact-checked. Seriously, at what point does an ounce of common sense kick in? Finally, why can't someone prone to "conducting their own research" easily debunk deliberate lies? At what point do you realize that politicians and other nefarious sources are conning you?

It's one thing to present misinformation to seek the truth, but you deliberately present misinformation as fact. You were warned about furthering this very conspiracy by two other mods, and you ignored it. I asked you several times to stop deliberately spreading misinformation and lies from unverified sources and you persist. Willfully spreading misinformation is demonstrably dangerous. Although I'm an advocate of misinformation presented in an open forum being debunked, the firehouse must be shut off at some point. The mod group has been more than lenient, but you've left no other option than to pursue a more severe punishment for not complying with requests to stop spreading false information.

[Lalouie]

acknowledging first that i don't get why athletes don't get vaxxed,,,,,i find it hilarious that there's an arena(i forget which) where in order to sit in at the floor you needa covid card for the first 4rows but not from the 5th row on back. reminds of back in the day when half the seats in the plane were non-smoking and the other half was smoking. or that in and arena of a few thousand fans screaming their lungs out, the players play w/o masks but put them back on when they sit on the bench ?????

good god, man