dudeDDRrulez

WEF Young Global Leader, class of 2016

This may sound odd but I would recommend a trade that cannot be easily replaced by AI. Something like an electrician or roofer. Then try to get an apprenticeship with an older professional and learn as much as you can. Skip college completely and just start a business instead. You will be so much better off financially compared to say, a lawyer who will be in debt for a while and who’s job is about to be made obsolete by AI.

Dodd Frank did away with bail outs. It will be a “bail in” using customer deposits this time around.

I guess I was fooled by the exact wording you used like the parent poster. Was there any particular reason for that?

Seriously.. we should censor medical doctors posting peer reviewed studies on Twitter. Now THAT is my kind of freedom.

Copy and pasting the parent post? Or are you just admitting to the world that you’re a bot account

This already-tired argument again.

Vaccines for influenza have been around for decades. The first covid shot was the first ever mRNA technology ever approved for human use.

Now the booster doesn’t simply swap out strains. It moves from a monovalent to a bivalent (original formula plus the Omicron Ba4/Ba5 formula) and we shouldn’t test it? The first ever bivalent mRNA vaccine. Deployed to everyone on the planet. With absolutely no human testing done.

If you’re okay with it, that’s great… that’s your personal choice to trust corrupt health authorities and for-profit vaccine manufacturers. Let me know how it goes.

No, they have not tested bivalent COVID-19 vaccines in large human trials. The best we have right now are some antibody titers results from 8 mice.

Where’d you end up?

Oh that’s for sure. You know that this is the case when the Omicron Ba4/Ba5 booster alone had higher antibody response (on mice, not humans. Humans weren’t even tested) than the EUA authorized bivalent booster which combines old and new formulas.

No, this is wrong.

The recent “5 times higher deaths for the unvaccinated!!!” headline was a study the CDC cited that used predictive models to make the claim that you’re more likely to die being unvaccinated. They put a number on it of 5 times but it’s just estimates of what could happen, not what did happen.

There are no numbers that exist to back up your claim. Or post away with a source if you think it’s real.

I think you misspelled “unknown” and it came out as “overwhelming”.

All jokes aside, the only benefit of this booster was seen in wildly inconsistent antibody levels of 8 mice. It has never been tested on humans.