Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna Covid-19 vaccine

September 18, 2006 light from a massive supernova reached earth. The star exploded in galaxy NGC 1260 238,000,000 light years away. This was the most energy intensive supernova ever recorded, and it's observation made it onto the Time magazine Top 10 scientific discoveries of the year.

This explosion is considered a scientific fact. You can not prove that this was not faked. I consider the likelihood that it was faked considerably higher than the likelihood that Trump won the election. Why? You would need to coordinate fewer people to fake it, and the people whom you would need to coordinate would be roughly neutral towards the outcome you are manufacturing. In contrast to tip the election without _any_ evidence of this subterfuge emerging you need to coordinate a lot more people, and many of those are actively working _against_ the outcome you are manufacturing.

I mean, i get where you are coming from: "Texas I can go and look at, microbes I can get a microscope and check myself, the electio I obviously can't!". Your problem is just that you stop thinking at this point. There just is more to it.

Either way, it's abundantly clear that the reason that 30% of the US believe the election was tipped has nothing to do with these philosophical points you raise. The election was not any more or less secure than the last couple of dozen that people by and large accepted. The only thing that changed is that Trump, for personal gain, actively undermined the trust in institutions specifically engineered to make cheating hard and to certify results.

But I suspect you probably know that on some level already.

My responses:

1: I agree. You really have to dig deep.

2: I agree. But you can at least assess risk vs other vaccines.

3: My point is that people should not be mandated to take that risk. The technology is good and fine but let people choose. This boils down to a collectivist vs individualist argument. Largely western culture is born of prizing the individual over the collective. We have seen the horrors in the past of where collectivism leads.

4: I agree, it has to be an economic solution.

5: This is a complex statement to unwrap. I don't know anyone who isn't maybe a fervent Atheist Hedonist that thinks that unfettered selfishness is a virtue. Only sociopaths think that way by design and will justify it with whatever means necessary, be in intellectual or anti-intellectual. I will say that I don't like the fact that being against a mandate for ethical reasons as I pointed out automatically = anti-vax.

6: I agree. I don't like that fact that my opinion gets lumped in with people who think Bill Gates is a lizard trying to chip everyone. I do however think the "conspiracy" here is that the US public health authorities are going out of their way to squash any answer to this pandemic that is not a vaccine for the sake of reducing "vaccine hesitancy", the magic word. I would not be surprised if this was primary motivator and is admitted to years down the line, and its not necessarily the same as a "conspiracy" if this is the key term behind closed doors. Fauci already did the same with masks, first being anti-mask to protect the supply, then pro-mask once supplies were ample. He admitted to this himself. He also slowly creeped up the herd immunity % from 60% to 85%. When asked about this, he said he did it deliberately because "the American public couldn't handle the truth". That sort of logic is bad for public trust. Vaccine Hesitancy mitigation explains why any discussion of repurposed drugs, natural immunity, etc is shut out of the conversation. Look at how they are treating Mercks announcement of a new drug, with constant reminder that its no replacement for a vaccine. Why? In a "war" situation against a virus, why are not all options on the table? Why would you give a vaccine or even boosters to people with natural immunity when there are still entire countries waiting on theirs? This idea that the pandemic will end when 95% of the USA is vaccinated is ridiculous. You need global immunity. Its why Norway and Denmark have already accepted the disease and endemic, never going away.

7: Adenovirus vector technology (JJ, Astro-Zen shots) has only been recently adapted into a vaccine, same as mRNA. You cannot say there are no long term side effects based solely on a "drug vs immune response" durations. Trials of adenovirus vector based technology have failed in past trails. HIV vaccine based on this was a miserable failure. They tried using adenovirus based gene therapy on children on single gene mutations in in children, 40% got leukemia within 4 years. We dont even have 4 years of data for the current vaccine. I would agree they have somewhat passed the initial stages, albeit with with way worse VAERS profiles then any other vaccine in the last 50 years. Good enough though safety to give to people who want it, not force it on those who don't. The risk calculus is different for everyone especially given age and health.

8: Evidence where? Again, VASER is all we have because they opted to keep it as all we have. Like how they just banned Moderna for under 30 year olds in scandanavian countries and totally banned it in Iceland.

9: EUA has specific rules defined well before Covid. There cannot be any alternative treatments: Monoclonal antibodies, repurposed drugs, etc. Saying it went through "phase 3" trials means nothing when they cut out tons of checks in those trials. Cross-reactivity, Carcinogenic studies, to name a few.

10: Agreed VAERS is bad, but we have no other mechanism is my point. Really no issues identified? Not clots, not mycarditis, not nervous system issues, not GBS, nothing? I dont see how you can make that statement, its not true. Look at what just happen with Moderna in Europe. Go watch the FDA's publicly broadcast meeting regarding booster authorization. Every single doctor on the panel hammers the mycardidits point for boosters, and now we see Moderna getting pulled for it. The data is still trickling in. VAER is only between 1-5% of reported issues they estimate because it takes 30 minutes just to fill out the forms and most doctors wont bother, and its still abysmally bad for these vaccines.

I have a STEM degree in Physics and work in simulation. My wife is an ICU nurse. She also won't take it, along with 50% of the staff including the doctors at each hospital she floats to (more then 5 per week). Why? Because they witness the adverse events first hand, especially the mycarditis and clots. you can't just collectively dismiss their witnessed experience. I have made the point to her that she is at the epicenter aggregator of all those people but once you see it happen first hand you start to realize its not as rare as they say given that in a small enough town, there should only be a handful according to the CDC/FDA.

I think the rights of individuals to make their own choices should be upheld no matter the cost, otherwise we fall into this collectivist mindset that can justify anything it wants for "greater good". What if 5 years in we find out that the mRNA causes arterial and heart damage as some claim to have evidence for, and that some express the pulmonary conditions more immediately then others with mycarditis but everyone has some long term damage that will come back to haunt them. We would all be lamenting at how dumb we were to blindly trust a new technology adapted for a new use just because someone put the word "vaccine" on it and we all unquestionably trusted that. What if the intellectual objectors were the smart ones in the end? Careful that Darwins selection doesn't end up reversed in this case.

Yes; that's why it has to be stored at such a cold temperature, to stave off that degradation.

The "engineered quasi-mRNA" aspect of things isn't to evade degradation, but initial immune response so it can avoid being broken down before it can express itself. https://www.science.org/content/article/mysterious-2-billion...

> Assembling mRNA using pseudouridine, a nucleoside variant that occurs naturally in the body, greatly reduced the tendency of immune sentinels called dendritic cells to shoot out inflammatory molecules in response, they reported in 2005.