https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/nyregion/nypd-unmasked-covid.amp.html
A perfect capture of police in America. Think the rules don’t apply to them, get challenged on it, respond with physical aggression, NYC police chief says lol no consequences.
An authoritarian cult of roided up shitheads. Shout out Riverman.
I had this decision between Moderna and Pfizer and…
Moderna was chosen by default and I didn’t bother thinking about it until I scheduled my appointment. So, I’m getting Moderna next Tuesday.
COVID is surging huge in the Czech Republic now. R is now 1.65. Wouldn’t be surprised if we’re at 10,000 cases/day again by some point in November. School organizations are opposed to having students wear masks in the classroom (common areas only still) but want to bring back testing as COVID testing hasn’t been done since mid-September.
Got lab results back today for the vaccine antibody test I had drawn one month after my 3rd Moderna dose. 288ug/ml this time, up from 225 after the second dose. A value >1 means antibodies are present, and these are both significantly higher than anyone else I know who is in the study. I’ve only seen numbers between 13 and 30ish for others results. Gives me a good bit of mental reassurance that I have some protection.
OR you have super Covid
those are some of the highest 5G readings i’ve ever seen
Related to the LOL Yahoo News. It seems like they are just lifting the stories with some citations. Like this one is actually from the National Review, but the full text is over here on Yahoo as well. It looks like the one mentioned previously was actually a Washington Examiner article, which makes sense.
The best part is that the NR did this bullshit in August, and are basically trying the same thing again. FWIW the actual statement from the NIH is here:
https://twitter.com/R_H_Ebright/status/1450947395508858880
You’ll note that the NIH says it’s not GOF despite Ebright’s contention otherwise.
YET
You’ll note that Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with that woman, despite Ken Starr’s contentions otherwise.
Francis Collins is a bit more trustworthy than Bill Clinton.
They inserted various spike proteins into coronaviruses to test whether it would make them more or less infectious to humans. In least one of the instances, it made the virus more infectious. I don’t know how you can possibly try to argue that’s not gain of function research.
The fact that the NIH is saying that the virus becoming more infectious was an unintended consequence of the research, and that nobody expected the virus to become more infectious is just bizarre. What was the point of the experiment then?
0 voters
Either mRNA vaccine is what I’d get. It’s pretty unlikely there’s a big enough difference between them to go out of your way for one or the other.
Need fourth option. Not J/J
Theres considerable disagreement among the experts in the community about what kinds of research should fall into the GoF rubric.
Probably what id choose tbh. Id definitely boost J&J and probably would get one of the mRNA ones but not sure we know yet what’s best. The official rec is probably going to be boost with J&J, but you can boost with anything you want.
Can you provide a definition where inserting spike proteins to make coronaviruses more infectious to humans is not considered gain of function?
Here’s the HHS guidelines, for example:
**A. A potential pandemic pathogen (PPP) is a pathogen that satisfies both of the following:
B. An enhanced PPP is defined as a PPP resulting from the enhancement of the transmissibility and/or virulence of a pathogen. Enhanced PPPs do not include naturally occurring pathogens that are circulating in or have been recovered from nature, regardless of their pandemic potential.
C. To the extent that transmissibility and/or virulence of PPPs are modified in the following categories of studies, the resulting pathogens are not considered to be enhanced PPPs for the purposes of this Framework3:
D. Proposed intramural and extramural life sciences research that is being considered for funding and that has been determined by the funding agency as reasonably anticipated to create, transfer, or use enhanced PPPs is subject to additional HHS department-level review as outlined herein.**
NIH is saying that the work described in that letter, i.e. inserting new spike proteins into coronaviruses and seeing what effect that has on their infectiousness in humans, was not reasonably anticipated to create enhanced PPPs. Does that make sense to you? Is the reasonable anticipation that every one of these spike proteins would make the virus less transmissible? If so, what is the purpose of the research?
No. The last time I dove into this it quickly became obvious that it’s esoteric and nuanced well beyond what I understand. Like the people who do this for a living disagree over what the classifications should be. No one outside of Rand Paul herpaderps think that there’s any obvious bad faith at play here.
More importantly, no one who’s an expert thinks COVID-19 was the byproduct of some GoF experiment.
