Home Unbiased and uncensored debate Covid-19 Medicines for COVID-19 variants for “individual” or “the greater good”?

  • Medicines for COVID-19 variants for “individual” or “the greater good”?

    Avatar IveyTech updated 2 weeks ago 1 Member · 1 Post
  • Avatar


    April 24, 2021 at 11:00 am

    Are these “-mab” drugs and “DNA” vaccines a cure or a poison?


    Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are now established as targeted therapies for malignancies, transplant rejection, autoimmune and infectious diseases, as well as a range of new indications. However, administration of mAbs carries the risk of immune reactions such as acute anaphylaxis, serum sickness and the generation of antibodies. In addition, there are numerous adverse effects of mAbs that are related to their specific targets, including infections and cancer, autoimmune disease, and organ-specific adverse events such as cardiotoxicity. In March 2006, a life-threatening cytokine release syndrome occurred during a first-in-human study with TGN1412 (a CD28-specific superagonist mAb), resulting in a range of recommendations to improve the safety of initial human clinical studies with mAbs. Here, we review some of the adverse effects encountered with mAb therapies, and discuss advances in preclinical testing and antibody technology aimed at minimizing the risk of these events.


    Can you decide or does someone declare them for the greater good…is the question you yourself have to answer for yourself.


    All Medicines Are Poison!

    Are the warnings against veterinary agents and compounds based on clinical trials with human subjects?


    Do you have to ask anyone – are you not the one who gives informed consent?

    Some would say “No, you waive your rights to be independent in your health choices by living in a community.”

    Do Patients Have a Fundamental Right to Choice?

    “For example, there may be a new experimental drug that a doctor and patient together decide is worth the risk to try, but the FDA has not approved it or even given the green light for a clinical trial on it. In principle, that drug might help the patient or it might hurt or even kill the patient. Advocates of medical freedom believe patients should broadly be allowed to evaluate and take such risks with their own personal physician if they so choose. They see the FDA as an obstacle to their freedom.

    As someone who has faced a very serious form of prostate cancer, I get the sense that being in a serious medical situation can change one’s views. Everything feels different when you are faced with a potentially lethal medical diagnosis yourself or for a loved one. Sometimes it’s not that simple though.

    As individuals our freedom and desire for choices can conflict with a greater good. For example, as a biomedical scientist and parent I do not believe that childhood vaccination should be optional. While there is no compelling evidence that vaccination is harmful beyond for that tiniest fraction of those who have severe reactions or pre-existing immune diseases, there is profound evidence–I would go so far as to say proof–of powerful benefits to both individuals and society as a whole of vaccination.”

    Me: [How about those that DIE after vaccinations, say…within two days after?]

    Herd immunization?

    I DO NOT AGREE. Why? Because I might try to listen to my body systems’ warnings!

    <b align=”center”>From the 4/16/2021 release of VAERS data:
    Found 1,026 cases where Onset Interval is 0 or 1 and Vaccine is COVID19 and Patient Died


    These individuals that died should have the government protecting their rights to life, not the sacrifice of their lives for the common good.


    “Everything we do has a risk-benefit ratio.” Dr. Kirschner took the title from his first pharmacology lecture in medical school. The professor said “I am here to teach you how to poison people.” After a pause, he added, “without killing them, of course.”

    He meant that any medicine that has effects has side effects, that the poison is in the dose, and that we must weigh the benefits of any treatment against the risks. Dr. Kirschner has no beef with scientific medicine. He does have a lot of other beefs, mainly with the health insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and alternative medicine.

    He explains the FDA, the standard drug approval process (phase I through III studies), fast-tracking, classification of drugs (Schedule I through V), black box warnings, drug recalls, off-label prescribing, the scientific method, package inserts, expiration dates, drug interactions, side effects, the role of sanitation in disease prevention, informed consent, developing resistance to antibiotics, placebos, immunizations, ethical issues, conflicts of interest, drug advertising, copycat drugs, why drugs cost so much, why “natural” doesn’t mean “harmless,” how dietary supplements can kill, how alternative medicine is not based on scientific evidence, chelation, DSHEA, NCCAM, the infiltration of CAM into medical schools and why we need a new Flexner report, what’s wrong with the American medical system (“What’s broken is the coverage system, not the care delivery system.”), and why “poison, cut and burn” is sometimes the only rational option. He does not like insurance companies, and he explains why. He ends by saying Lincoln’s characterization of our government as “Of the people, by the people, for the people” is now better described as

    Of the people, Buy the lawmakers, For the corporations.

Log in to reply.

Original Post
0 of 0 posts June 2018