Thank you very much for the reference. I will read the paper. There appear to be some relevant pre-2020 references in there as well, which I consider to be a very good thing.
but the sheer stupidity on here when it comes to interpreting data and molesting it to become a confirmation bias fuckfest is embarrassing.
I couldn't agree more. I feel like I'm playing Whack O' Mole most of the time. Your efforts are very much appreciated.
If the MSM and assholes alike are pushing mRNAs then they are probably not that much of a good idea.
I do not think this is a good input metric for decision making. This to me is little better than listening to them in earnest. They are just two different ways of handing over critical thinking to known liars.
In regards to your last point - have a look at the Atlantic's gloat article on J&J. It's enough to make your stomach turn. This is the narrative they're going with, for whatever reason.
I suspect that reason is $. AD26 is "cheaper" to make because they have the facilities en masse. mRNA is something they can charge a premium for.
If people like the Atlantic are gloatpushing it, its usually because $ has exchanged hands.
I don't like Pfizer's extremely aggressive practices when it comes to suppressing studies and influencing. They've spent a lot of money influencing a lot of other markets, suppressing studies and buying journalists/influencers - at great cost to not only customers, but science itself. Not only that, they've used $ and influence to cover up issues with their products - issues resulting in injury and death.
It's not a scientific metric to judge them on, no, but it's a a very reliable observational/psychological one. Behavior you get away with, is behavior you repeat.
Thank you very much for the reference. I will read the paper. There appear to be some relevant pre-2020 references in there as well, which I consider to be a very good thing.
I couldn't agree more. I feel like I'm playing Whack O' Mole most of the time. Your efforts are very much appreciated.
I do not think this is a good input metric for decision making. This to me is little better than listening to them in earnest. They are just two different ways of handing over critical thinking to known liars.
In regards to your last point - have a look at the Atlantic's gloat article on J&J. It's enough to make your stomach turn. This is the narrative they're going with, for whatever reason.
I suspect that reason is $. AD26 is "cheaper" to make because they have the facilities en masse. mRNA is something they can charge a premium for. If people like the Atlantic are gloatpushing it, its usually because $ has exchanged hands.
I don't like Pfizer's extremely aggressive practices when it comes to suppressing studies and influencing. They've spent a lot of money influencing a lot of other markets, suppressing studies and buying journalists/influencers - at great cost to not only customers, but science itself. Not only that, they've used $ and influence to cover up issues with their products - issues resulting in injury and death.
It's not a scientific metric to judge them on, no, but it's a a very reliable observational/psychological one. Behavior you get away with, is behavior you repeat.