User Controls

Pfizer releases 90% effective covid vaccine today

  1. #61
    Originally posted by mmQ Why not 149 years?

    Because they only found out 150yrs later?
  2. #62
    Sophie Pedophile Tech Support
    Excellent, we happen to manufacture -80C freezers here in Holland.

    happy_merchant.png
  3. #63
    Ranitidine is a good example.

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced it is requesting manufacturers withdraw all prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) ranitidine drugs from the market immediately. This is the latest step in an ongoing investigation of a contaminant known as N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in ranitidine medications (commonly known by the brand name Zantac). The agency has determined that the impurity in some ranitidine products increases over time and when stored at higher than room temperatures and may result in consumer exposure to unacceptable levels of this impurity. As a result of this immediate market withdrawal request, ranitidine products will not be available for new or existing prescriptions or OTC use in the U.S.

    This shit's been on the market since 1981 and was only withdrawn last year.
  4. #64
    Originally posted by Sophie Excellent, we happen to manufacture -80C freezers here in Holland.

    happy_merchant.png

    The 94% one only needs to be in regular refrigeration so the 90% -80 will get the boot.
  5. #65
    stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
    Originally posted by Technologist Moderna a says they have a 94% efficacy vaccine.👍🏻



    I heard that but haven't read an article on it yet.

    Does it have the cold storage issues of the other vaccine?

    Note: Posted before reading above post.

    Besides, would rather listen to Tech insofar as she is a member of the medical community...and sends better newds than Jiggle Booty.
  6. #66
    mmQ Lisa Turtle
    Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Because they only found out 150yrs later?

    Found out what? He just said "long-term effects" and 150 years. Clearly it would stand to reason that I could say after 149-years of studies I've been able to learn some long-term effects of smoking.

    This is why I want to know the numb4rs man the NUMBEEERSS. I guess it just has to be just a randomly decided number that the consensus agrees upon as a good one. Like the number they decide for when abortions should be illegal or why 18 was chosen for most states as the consent age when others say 17 or 16.

    But who knows maybe nothing should be considered to have been tested in the long-term because it's still relatively short in relation to the time left in the future!!!

    Actually I just figured it out. Smoking for example, wouldnt need 150 years to have its long-term effects studied. Nobody lives that long anyway. It's just some number, like 20 years. But why not 19? Because 19 years is short term effects. Why? Because I said so.

    Thank you
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  7. #67
    stl1 Cum Lickin' Fagit
    Well, I'm glad we cleared that up.
  8. #68
    ORACLE Naturally Camouflaged
    Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson 6 months isn't long term effects testing…There have been drugs on the market for 2 decades that have then been found to increase the likelyhood of cancer etc.

    Shut up retard. A long time has not passed, we are currently in the middle of tests because the long time is currently in the process of passing.
  9. #69
    Originally posted by mmQ Why not 149 years?

    because "scientists" only look into it when they saw tobacco companies celebrate their companies 150th anniversary.

    thats why companies that deal in vices dont celebrate their anniversaries. and those that do dont always end well.
  10. #70
    Originally posted by ORACLE Shut up retard. A long time has not passed, we are currently in the middle of tests because the long time is currently in the process of passing.

    so your saying their longterm safety remains untested ?

    thats what i was saying.
  11. #71
    ORACLE Naturally Camouflaged
    Originally posted by vindicktive vinny so your saying their longterm safety remains untested ?

    thats what i was saying.

    The long term safety is currently being tested. Does currently being tested mean the same thing as untested to you?
  12. #72
    Narc Naturally Camouflaged [connect my yokel-like scolytidae]
    Originally posted by aldra I don't think this vaccine will ever see mass deployment

    it's apparently a new type of vaccine that uses live mRNA so it needs to be stored at less than -70 degrees celsius, which would mean they'd need to install high-grade refrigeration equipment all through the supply chain

    Its gonna be fucked up the moment it enters the 37 degree environment known as the human body then.


    .
  13. #73
    aldra JIDF Controlled Opposition
    as I understand it the MRNA itself doesn't live long outside of a living organism, and the deep cold is meant to put it into a sort of cryogenic stasis until it's reintroduced to a living host.


    I'm not sure why they went with MRNA instead of the standard way of sequencing components from the dead virus like the Russians did, if it's because the MRNA method is more resistant to mutations or just because they want to sell medical refridgeration equipment
  14. #74
    Originally posted by ORACLE The long term safety is currently being tested. Does currently being tested mean the same thing as untested to you?

    YES.

    since the test results are not yet in, it can be considered, legally and phillosophically that its the same as being untested.
  15. #75
    Originally posted by aldra as I understand it the MRNA itself doesn't live long outside of a living organism, and the deep cold is meant to put it into a sort of cryogenic stasis until it's reintroduced to a living host.


    I'm not sure why they went with MRNA instead of the standard way of sequencing components from the dead virus like the Russians did, if it's because the MRNA method is more resistant to mutations or just because they want to sell medical refridgeration equipment

    or just to shut the climate change proponents up.
  16. #76
    aldra JIDF Controlled Opposition
    also I don't buy into the 'mark of the beast' stuff but I have no intention of getting a vaccine. the whole situation is way too shady
  17. #77
    ORACLE Naturally Camouflaged
    Originally posted by vindicktive vinny YES.

    since the test results are not yet in, it can be considered, legally and phillosophically that its the same as being untested.

    Tests are happening so yes it has been tested. We just don't have the results.
  18. #78
    Originally posted by aldra also I don't buy into the 'mark of the beast' stuff but I have no intention of getting a vaccine. the whole situation is way too shady

    mark of the beast is more like this.

  19. #79
    Originally posted by ORACLE Tests are happening so yes it has been tested. We just don't have the results.

    ^ shítskin democrate logic. thats why they pronounce biden president errect before the vote results are in.
  20. #80
    They upped the % to 95%...how convenient in light of the other guys 94.5% claim...
Jump to Top