That rolling review is from Nov 2020 and refers to the monovalent. I think I've read it 20 times, and each time I get more out of it. Note that the bivalent manufacturing is even more complicated. It's important to note, that the reviewers identified and noted many deficiencies, and only the EMA placed Specific Obligations on the vaccine…
That rolling review is from Nov 2020 and refers to the monovalent. I think I've read it 20 times, and each time I get more out of it. Note that the bivalent manufacturing is even more complicated.
It's important to note, that the reviewers identified and noted many deficiencies, and only the EMA placed Specific Obligations on the vaccine (cant find anything at the FDA and HC), but that they were overruled no more than a month later in Dec 2020. How and who is a mystery. Secondly, not much has improved based on Kevin's analysis since that time. This is even more surprising to me. Pharma is really proud of their manufacturing prowess and making good high quality pharmaceutics. Thats why they attack generics and the biosimilars.
I have always suspected and think we are gathering enough evidence that the slopping manufacturing and the lack of progress on quality control is to cover for something...and no I am not on the nanobot or graphene wagon yet. That plastic mRNA is bad enough.
I am also concerned with the contamination of LPS/endotoxin and dsRNA.
Also I have been trying to figure out the poly (A) tail business for 2 years and why they used ddPCR for this.
Each element is a rabbit hole. And we even haven't started on the LNPs.
I was just saying earlier that even if the vials weren't contaminated, it's STILL risky and remains the choice of the individual to choose to get injected or not.
Individual can not wisely choose if the individual does not know what he/she is choosing. If you, the expert, just found out what is in the barrel, 13 B recipients were injected unknown substance and many unwillingly. STILL risky should imply NO CHOOSING.
Yes it no more constitutes a *choice* than, for instance, obeying a road sign. An act is not a choice merely because in principle one could have done otherwise. No choice can be judged independently of its circumstances.
When I ‘choose’ to comply with traffic signs it’s on the assumption that it’s in my interest. No one could freely choose something potentially lethal to their welfare unless suicidal. To designate submission to the injection a ‘choice’ is a travesty: being prey to deception is the polar opposite of choice.
This abuse of meaning and truth - “it’s your right to choose”- undermines resistance. Right and wrong are not reducible to ‘choice’. Even if suicidal it’s wrong to take the jab because suicide is wrong. *Logically* however it’s perfectly correct.
I am not sure these can ever be made without some contamination, or without issues of post translation modifications, glycosylation, and errors in translation.
It is not Pfizer making it. It is not BioNTech making it. It is some no name company in China f ing around. I will look for the link now. This is how everything works. Risk is farmed out and covered.
1 minute search. Am I missing something that others could not do this?
The deals are for “domestic” or local use of the vaccine. There is no mention of the vaccine being provided to Pfizer for distribution in the US. Pfizer, being very profit-oriented, does like these deals because such deals hurt their profits.
Not sure what you mean but China does not use mRNA injections. They are very smart when it comes to cellular biology unlike Americans, generally speaking.
That is from where we get the majority of US and Canada's Cell Bio etc., scientists.
That rolling review is from Nov 2020 and refers to the monovalent. I think I've read it 20 times, and each time I get more out of it. Note that the bivalent manufacturing is even more complicated.
It's important to note, that the reviewers identified and noted many deficiencies, and only the EMA placed Specific Obligations on the vaccine (cant find anything at the FDA and HC), but that they were overruled no more than a month later in Dec 2020. How and who is a mystery. Secondly, not much has improved based on Kevin's analysis since that time. This is even more surprising to me. Pharma is really proud of their manufacturing prowess and making good high quality pharmaceutics. Thats why they attack generics and the biosimilars.
I have always suspected and think we are gathering enough evidence that the slopping manufacturing and the lack of progress on quality control is to cover for something...and no I am not on the nanobot or graphene wagon yet. That plastic mRNA is bad enough.
I am also concerned with the contamination of LPS/endotoxin and dsRNA.
Also I have been trying to figure out the poly (A) tail business for 2 years and why they used ddPCR for this.
Each element is a rabbit hole. And we even haven't started on the LNPs.
I know...
I was just saying earlier that even if the vials weren't contaminated, it's STILL risky and remains the choice of the individual to choose to get injected or not.
Individual can not wisely choose if the individual does not know what he/she is choosing. If you, the expert, just found out what is in the barrel, 13 B recipients were injected unknown substance and many unwillingly. STILL risky should imply NO CHOOSING.
Yes it no more constitutes a *choice* than, for instance, obeying a road sign. An act is not a choice merely because in principle one could have done otherwise. No choice can be judged independently of its circumstances.
When I ‘choose’ to comply with traffic signs it’s on the assumption that it’s in my interest. No one could freely choose something potentially lethal to their welfare unless suicidal. To designate submission to the injection a ‘choice’ is a travesty: being prey to deception is the polar opposite of choice.
This abuse of meaning and truth - “it’s your right to choose”- undermines resistance. Right and wrong are not reducible to ‘choice’. Even if suicidal it’s wrong to take the jab because suicide is wrong. *Logically* however it’s perfectly correct.
I am not sure these can ever be made without some contamination, or without issues of post translation modifications, glycosylation, and errors in translation.
It is not Pfizer making it. It is not BioNTech making it. It is some no name company in China f ing around. I will look for the link now. This is how everything works. Risk is farmed out and covered.
1 minute search. Am I missing something that others could not do this?
https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1007409/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sixthtone.com%2Fnews%2F1007409%2Fchinese-firm-signs-deal-to-produce-pfizer-biontech-vaccine
And moving forward...
We know what experts there are in Brazil and what a state of chaos they are in right now with the fake election.
https://en.mercopress.com/2021/08/27/pfizer-biontech-signs-deal-for-brazilian-production-of-covid-19-vaccines
The deals are for “domestic” or local use of the vaccine. There is no mention of the vaccine being provided to Pfizer for distribution in the US. Pfizer, being very profit-oriented, does like these deals because such deals hurt their profits.
Not sure what you mean but China does not use mRNA injections. They are very smart when it comes to cellular biology unlike Americans, generally speaking.
That is from where we get the majority of US and Canada's Cell Bio etc., scientists.