All this is very baffling to me, as a Malaysian. Did you know how hard it was for us to get vaccines? And that when we finally got them, we had a "ticketing" system where we had to wait by age to get them? And then so many died because they were too far in the queue?
Yeah, it's baffling. I'm from the US & don't understand it.
The biggest group of vaccine-deniers are conservatives who already believed anti-government, anti-science conspiracies. One of our two largest parties, the Republicans, has been taken over by activists who believe elites in Hollywood, the tech industry & media control politics at the federal level.
Republican politicians encouraged these conspiracy beliefs for the last 30+ years. It made their supporters angry & afraid. Angry/afraid people vote.
Most Republican voters are full-blown paranoids now. A Republican politician who uses those stories to whip up conservatives to vote... but doesn't follow through and actually pass laws to throw Democrats in jail for 'child sex trafficking' or scientists in jail for their 'world-wide conspiracy to inject us w/poisonous vaccines'... is dismissed by the activist base as being allied to the 'sex-traffickers' & 'Big Pharma'.
That's really sad because I know there are good, level-headed Republicans. Used to have some as friends and we'd debate and talk about issues without it devolving into name calling. I also greatly admire John McCain.
PS: I'm not American, but Malaysian :) Generally, I lean left.
I apologize for oversimplifying. I often forget that Malaysians & other non-Americans almost always have a MUCH better grasp of US politics than Americans do of say, Malaysian, politics.
There are level-headed Republicans. The majority are. Some US states (like Maryland) have Republican governors from the level-headed faction. But the minority of Republicans who take imaginary 'culture war' issues seriously... take them REALLY seriously.
Those 'culture war' Republicans have an out-of-proportion effect in the primary elections where parties pick their candidates, who'll run against the other parties' candidates in the general election. Since primary elections are less important, often only 25-35% of the members of a party bother to show up to vote. This allows a highly motivated minority, say 40% of that party, to choose a party candidate that 60% of the party would not have chosen.
If half the radical, angry, highly-motivated 40% votes, while only a quarter of the level-headed 60% vote... the radicals win.
Sorry for the longggggggg lecture about stuff you probably already know. ;)
I wouldn't say I have a much better grasp at all! I would say that I'm quite aware of what's going on, but I certainly do not understand much of the context.
But from what you say, US politics is so much like Malaysia's. Dominated by radicals. Sigh!
Stereotype much? Read the book "Cause Unknown" by Ed Dowd, or "The Real Anthony Fauci" by that rabid conservative Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to see why people opposed to this particular EUA "vaccine" (they had to change the definition of vaccine to fit this one) are concerned.
RFK Jr. Is not a reflection of the Democratic Party, or most of his family either. He went to rabid antivaxxism years ago. He uses pseudoscience and very biased, misinterpretationsof real science to push his message. I expect the anti-Fauci book is a reflection of that same extreme bias and scientific ignorance.
mRNA "has not gotten the proper 10+ years of safety testing needed".
Millions of people were dying. Vaccine safety-testing is routinely expedited in response to pandemics. That's what you do when the tested vaccine appears to show 90+% reductions in morbidity. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-021-01140-x
"Vaccine safety-testing is routinely expedited in response to pandemics."
It's not even that. The antivaxers are joyfully and purposedly confusing things.
The usual time for the developement of a new drug is about 10+ years, indeed. But, emphasis, this is the total developement time.
The time for safety testing is only the last leg, a much shorter time.
The time to develop a new drug is going to be a lot faster is its development has been on/off for a decade. Which is that happened to the anti-covid mRNA vaccines, serious research started with the first pandemic.
For vaccines, we know from experience that if something is going to happen it's going to be in the first 3 months. So 3-6 months of test is enough. For negative effects which happen later or are rarer (and thus not seen in a 40,000-people clinical trial), we Europeans and Americans (and Asians, I guess) have these nifty post-marketing surveillance systems. Which indeed caught rare negative effects. It was in the News all the time.
Systems which antivaxers know about. They talk about VAERS all the time.
Also, another time factor if recruiting time, for the cinical trials. And the resources in money and personel. Funny enough, during a pandemic, getting all these resources is a lot easier.
"to make our body produce a spike protein that is inflammatory."
ALL working vaccines produce an inflammatory response. It's the point. It's part of the immune response.
Historically, the first vaccines were making your "body produce a spike protein that is inflammatory". Actually, the protein came attached to the whole, live virus. These were called live-attenuated vaccines.
Thanks for the Pubmed article. Interesting reading.
You know it's about a "traditional" vaccine of inactivated bugs, right?
OK, right. What's the point? You have your opinion, I have mine.
We are just going to keep talking past one-another.
The typical 10+ years of safety testing would have completely missed the pandemic.
I have heard the "left' mock and criticism the antivax fear mongers, but not people with legitimately verified vaccine injuries. It's the extreme exaggerations based on no real evidence and false conclusions drawn from speculative theories that I've seen criticized.They're like : "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf", again and again, so very difficult to take seriously. Real vaccine injuries, where other possible causes have been ruled out, like Covid-19, heart defects, other conditions predating the vaccinations. It's the pouncing on every death in a vaccinated person as a vaccine death or inury that is foolish, destructive and distracts from the few, serious injuries caused by the vaccines, as well as the millions of lives and serious injuries from covid-19 that were prevented by them.
Novavax didn't apply for EUA until late in the pandemic( early last year, as I recall) Sinovac has not performed very well, and the viral vector vaccines ( Astra Zeneca and Jannsen) had such serious side effects
( severe blood clotting disorder leading to strokes and other serious problems)that they were restricted or banned in many countries. You could have taken the Jannsen( Johnson and Johnson)vaccine early in the pandemic if you'd wanted a more traditional vaccine, like Novavax. Novavax is not a killed or weakened virus vaccine, by the way. It's part of the virus grown/ cultured in tissue from moths wings.
Malone readily admits it. And says that he was injured by it. Had extreme, life threatening hypertension following the injection. Seems obvious to me you have never really listened to him.
All the peer-reviewed data/studies show vaccination works. The various studies that indicated otherwise turned out to be poorly conducted or frauds. Look up how the Elgazzar study showing high Ivermectin efficacy was trumpeted by the anti-vax community... and how none of those people admitted they'd gotten it wrong after Elgazzar was shown to be a based on faked data.https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93658
The weird thing is I understand the hesitancy at first... but now its clear that its extremely effective at preventing death, and serious side effects are so incredibly rare that they're nearly undetectable. For anyone following a logical thought pattern, it would make sense to be hesitant at first, then get vaccinated later. Not the opposite.
they were fully vaxxed at that time (June 2021), but decided to stop getting anymore before that interview. Public Health generally says 'fully vaccinated' means up to date with vaccination, meaning boosted within ~last 6 months, so by the Public Health definition they are not fully vaccinated.
It's not crazy at all; they both trusted the medical establishment and Pharma. And they have both readily "admitted" it. In fact, Dr. Malone had a serious adverse event following his shot. You might try watching one of his videos or interviews.
Dude - the people who are still pushing the novel Covid jabs are worse than drug dealers. At least the poison most drug dealers sell is effective, and everyone knows that it may not be safe…
How much money did the pharmaceutical companies, their employees, the hospitals, etc etc make from the ineffective and unsafe covid "vaccines"? Any money these doctors and other medical professionals make pales in comparison. And no one is forced to buy their products or services in order to keep their job, stay in school or travel.
Thanks for shedding light on this troubling trend, Derek. It’s disheartening to see how misinformation can be monetized so effectively, especially when it compromises public health and safety. The examples you’ve highlighted underscore the dangers of unchecked narratives and the exploitation of platforms like Substack for profit.
While it's crucial to address and call out these grifters, it's also important to remember that the broader conversation around misinformation requires a multifaceted approach. Strengthening media literacy, improving fact-checking practices, and promoting transparent and accurate scientific communication are key steps in countering these harmful influences.
I agree that tackling misinformation is a long-term project, and vigilance is necessary. Engaging in constructive dialogue and supporting credible sources can help mitigate the impact of these misleading narratives. Thanks again for bringing this issue to the forefront.
All this is very baffling to me, as a Malaysian. Did you know how hard it was for us to get vaccines? And that when we finally got them, we had a "ticketing" system where we had to wait by age to get them? And then so many died because they were too far in the queue?
Yeah, it's baffling. I'm from the US & don't understand it.
The biggest group of vaccine-deniers are conservatives who already believed anti-government, anti-science conspiracies. One of our two largest parties, the Republicans, has been taken over by activists who believe elites in Hollywood, the tech industry & media control politics at the federal level.
Republican politicians encouraged these conspiracy beliefs for the last 30+ years. It made their supporters angry & afraid. Angry/afraid people vote.
Most Republican voters are full-blown paranoids now. A Republican politician who uses those stories to whip up conservatives to vote... but doesn't follow through and actually pass laws to throw Democrats in jail for 'child sex trafficking' or scientists in jail for their 'world-wide conspiracy to inject us w/poisonous vaccines'... is dismissed by the activist base as being allied to the 'sex-traffickers' & 'Big Pharma'.
That's really sad because I know there are good, level-headed Republicans. Used to have some as friends and we'd debate and talk about issues without it devolving into name calling. I also greatly admire John McCain.
PS: I'm not American, but Malaysian :) Generally, I lean left.
I apologize for oversimplifying. I often forget that Malaysians & other non-Americans almost always have a MUCH better grasp of US politics than Americans do of say, Malaysian, politics.
There are level-headed Republicans. The majority are. Some US states (like Maryland) have Republican governors from the level-headed faction. But the minority of Republicans who take imaginary 'culture war' issues seriously... take them REALLY seriously.
Those 'culture war' Republicans have an out-of-proportion effect in the primary elections where parties pick their candidates, who'll run against the other parties' candidates in the general election. Since primary elections are less important, often only 25-35% of the members of a party bother to show up to vote. This allows a highly motivated minority, say 40% of that party, to choose a party candidate that 60% of the party would not have chosen.
If half the radical, angry, highly-motivated 40% votes, while only a quarter of the level-headed 60% vote... the radicals win.
Sorry for the longggggggg lecture about stuff you probably already know. ;)
I wouldn't say I have a much better grasp at all! I would say that I'm quite aware of what's going on, but I certainly do not understand much of the context.
But from what you say, US politics is so much like Malaysia's. Dominated by radicals. Sigh!
Stereotype much? Read the book "Cause Unknown" by Ed Dowd, or "The Real Anthony Fauci" by that rabid conservative Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to see why people opposed to this particular EUA "vaccine" (they had to change the definition of vaccine to fit this one) are concerned.
RFK Jr. Is not a reflection of the Democratic Party, or most of his family either. He went to rabid antivaxxism years ago. He uses pseudoscience and very biased, misinterpretationsof real science to push his message. I expect the anti-Fauci book is a reflection of that same extreme bias and scientific ignorance.
You might try reading it before judging it. And him.
mRNA "has not gotten the proper 10+ years of safety testing needed".
Millions of people were dying. Vaccine safety-testing is routinely expedited in response to pandemics. That's what you do when the tested vaccine appears to show 90+% reductions in morbidity. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-021-01140-x
"Vaccine safety-testing is routinely expedited in response to pandemics."
It's not even that. The antivaxers are joyfully and purposedly confusing things.
The usual time for the developement of a new drug is about 10+ years, indeed. But, emphasis, this is the total developement time.
The time for safety testing is only the last leg, a much shorter time.
The time to develop a new drug is going to be a lot faster is its development has been on/off for a decade. Which is that happened to the anti-covid mRNA vaccines, serious research started with the first pandemic.
For vaccines, we know from experience that if something is going to happen it's going to be in the first 3 months. So 3-6 months of test is enough. For negative effects which happen later or are rarer (and thus not seen in a 40,000-people clinical trial), we Europeans and Americans (and Asians, I guess) have these nifty post-marketing surveillance systems. Which indeed caught rare negative effects. It was in the News all the time.
Systems which antivaxers know about. They talk about VAERS all the time.
Also, another time factor if recruiting time, for the cinical trials. And the resources in money and personel. Funny enough, during a pandemic, getting all these resources is a lot easier.
I'm sorry for you loss. I really am.
"to make our body produce a spike protein that is inflammatory."
ALL working vaccines produce an inflammatory response. It's the point. It's part of the immune response.
Historically, the first vaccines were making your "body produce a spike protein that is inflammatory". Actually, the protein came attached to the whole, live virus. These were called live-attenuated vaccines.
Thanks for the Pubmed article. Interesting reading.
You know it's about a "traditional" vaccine of inactivated bugs, right?
OK, right. What's the point? You have your opinion, I have mine.
We are just going to keep talking past one-another.
I stop here.
In most US states, in late 2021, 90-95% of the patients in the ICUs were unvaccinated. Vaccines work.
https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2021/11/94-of-its-covid-patients-in-icu-are-unvaccinated-spectrum-health-says.html
The typical 10+ years of safety testing would have completely missed the pandemic.
I have heard the "left' mock and criticism the antivax fear mongers, but not people with legitimately verified vaccine injuries. It's the extreme exaggerations based on no real evidence and false conclusions drawn from speculative theories that I've seen criticized.They're like : "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf", again and again, so very difficult to take seriously. Real vaccine injuries, where other possible causes have been ruled out, like Covid-19, heart defects, other conditions predating the vaccinations. It's the pouncing on every death in a vaccinated person as a vaccine death or inury that is foolish, destructive and distracts from the few, serious injuries caused by the vaccines, as well as the millions of lives and serious injuries from covid-19 that were prevented by them.
Novavax didn't apply for EUA until late in the pandemic( early last year, as I recall) Sinovac has not performed very well, and the viral vector vaccines ( Astra Zeneca and Jannsen) had such serious side effects
( severe blood clotting disorder leading to strokes and other serious problems)that they were restricted or banned in many countries. You could have taken the Jannsen( Johnson and Johnson)vaccine early in the pandemic if you'd wanted a more traditional vaccine, like Novavax. Novavax is not a killed or weakened virus vaccine, by the way. It's part of the virus grown/ cultured in tissue from moths wings.
What's wild is that both Kirsch and Malone are fully vaccinated
Malone readily admits it. And says that he was injured by it. Had extreme, life threatening hypertension following the injection. Seems obvious to me you have never really listened to him.
That's crazy. Have they publicly admitted that?
It's not crazy. They clearly changed their mind about it. Lots of people did.
All the peer-reviewed data/studies show vaccination works. The various studies that indicated otherwise turned out to be poorly conducted or frauds. Look up how the Elgazzar study showing high Ivermectin efficacy was trumpeted by the anti-vax community... and how none of those people admitted they'd gotten it wrong after Elgazzar was shown to be a based on faked data.https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93658
The weird thing is I understand the hesitancy at first... but now its clear that its extremely effective at preventing death, and serious side effects are so incredibly rare that they're nearly undetectable. For anyone following a logical thought pattern, it would make sense to be hesitant at first, then get vaccinated later. Not the opposite.
Are you serious?! Ever hear of VAERS? Or the British "Yellow Card"? Good lord.
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/bret-weinstein-darkhorse-podcast/id1471581521?i=1000525032595
At about 3:20. Both vaccinated and admit to on podcast with other classic grifter Bret Weinstein
they were fully vaxxed at that time (June 2021), but decided to stop getting anymore before that interview. Public Health generally says 'fully vaccinated' means up to date with vaccination, meaning boosted within ~last 6 months, so by the Public Health definition they are not fully vaccinated.
Wow. Love how BW takes less than 5s to segue into a claim that taking ivermectin is 100% effective at preventing COVID.
It's not crazy at all; they both trusted the medical establishment and Pharma. And they have both readily "admitted" it. In fact, Dr. Malone had a serious adverse event following his shot. You might try watching one of his videos or interviews.
Dude - the people who are still pushing the novel Covid jabs are worse than drug dealers. At least the poison most drug dealers sell is effective, and everyone knows that it may not be safe…
How much money did the pharmaceutical companies, their employees, the hospitals, etc etc make from the ineffective and unsafe covid "vaccines"? Any money these doctors and other medical professionals make pales in comparison. And no one is forced to buy their products or services in order to keep their job, stay in school or travel.
Thanks for shedding light on this troubling trend, Derek. It’s disheartening to see how misinformation can be monetized so effectively, especially when it compromises public health and safety. The examples you’ve highlighted underscore the dangers of unchecked narratives and the exploitation of platforms like Substack for profit.
While it's crucial to address and call out these grifters, it's also important to remember that the broader conversation around misinformation requires a multifaceted approach. Strengthening media literacy, improving fact-checking practices, and promoting transparent and accurate scientific communication are key steps in countering these harmful influences.
I agree that tackling misinformation is a long-term project, and vigilance is necessary. Engaging in constructive dialogue and supporting credible sources can help mitigate the impact of these misleading narratives. Thanks again for bringing this issue to the forefront.
I note that you didn't define "anti-vaxxer". Please can you tell us what you mean by this term?
Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, made $27 million last year...