AnUser
#204
No the solution is that government politicians has no business in deciding recommendations for diet, vaccines, additives, and what dietary fat should be used for frying.
2 Likes
Bicep
#205
I actually agree with both of you, that we do need to fund basic science. Also that the gov. should stay out of the way on what we put into our bodies. I’m pretty close to libertarian.
1 Like
Such an important concept for people to understand.
Sure it’s not perfect but without teaching and learning basic science at that level, there will be no science, except what the oligarchs want to make money from.
Lots of huge companies have strong R&D budgets and are market driven to do so. Many also do primary reseach on their own dime BUT that then become “proprietary” and the cost/benefit to the consumer is skewed by the corporate necessity of ROI.
Publicly funded primary research in both private and public institutions is critical in not just the results of the science but in raising up every generation of scientist to a higher level. This allows for failure that commerce cannot afford or chooses not to afford as it affects the stock price…
When doing R&D (neither of which can stand alone) it gets expensive. Here in Canada we have some excellent programs for private R&D work. IRAP and SR&ED (we just call it shred) have stimulated small companies to take risks that they would not otherwise be able to afford.
I’ve worked on more than a few IRAP and a lot of SR&ED supported R&D projects that resulted in spectacular success but the failures over many years of hard work required to get to those successes would be unsustainable by a small company.
Those successes led to more jobs, more tech being developed and still more jobs.
So yeah, without the public purse helping out with primary research we would all be worse off than we are today.
1 Like
Here in the US, DARPA has been a frequent source of funding for research that seems pretty removed from strictly defence applications. A lot of valuable research that would otherwise never get funded got under way thanks to that money. Who knows what happens next, there seem to be a lot of changes underfoot with the new administration. However “saving” on R&D is tragically shortsighted, as R&D tends to return much more on that investment long term and seen in the context of benefits to the whole society. Modern civilization was built on science research supported by the whole society (i.e. government funding), it’s odd to see that engine now being dismantled or impaired by those who profess themselves to be the guardians of Western Civilization. How do they think Western Civilization came to be so dominant? Government funded science was a fundamental pillar of that building.
Speaking of the devil, here we go:
Department of Defense issues over 100 stop-work orders to Northwestern researchers
“Schill noted that projects affected include research into wearable devices, robotics, nanotechnology, foreign military training, Parkinson’s disease among others.”
Maybe they were using gender bending woke mice in the research, so it had to be cut. No more trans nanotechnology, feminist robotics and non-red meat soy based wearable devices. We have been saved.
2 Likes
The internet is a good example of DARPA funding. This started with Arpanet.
5 Likes
LukeMV
#209
I agree, and this applies to the previous administration too, who tried to eliminate people from participating in society for not doing as they were told during covid (as much as I know how strongly in favor you are of the covid shots, I feel that personal choice is a separate issue).
Same. Libertarian all the way. Let me do whatever the F I want and stay out of my life as long as I’m not hurting anyone. This should be common sense, but ideology beats common sense these days.
2 Likes
Public health policies, in general, are there for that exact reason.
1 Like
Wow… disinformation coming out of the HHS director today. I would not allow this guy to post in our forums.
The truth, according the children’s hospital of Philadelphia:
Why are fetal cells used to make some vaccines?
Viruses reproduce in cells, so to grow viruses for a vaccine, one of the necessary “tools” is a type of cell in which the virus will grow. Viruses will not grow in just any cell type, so one of the first things a scientist needs to do is to figure out what cells the virus will infect in the lab. Because viruses infect people, human cells are a good place to start checking.
The most important benefit offered by using fetal cells was that they were isolated from the sterile environment of the womb. This meant the cells would not be infected with other viruses, and the vaccine produced in these cells would not inadvertently introduce any other viruses.
To find out more about the decision to use fetal cells to grow vaccine viruses, check out the video, Stanley Plotkin: Pioneering the use of fetal cells to make rubella vaccine.
What types of fetal cells are used?
All vaccines made using fetal cells, except the COVID-19 vaccine, are made using fibroblast cells. The COVID-19 vaccine (J&J/Janssen) is made using fetal retinal cells.
Do vaccines contain parts of fetuses or fetal cells?
In order to grow viruses in the lab, cells need to be made into single cell suspensions, meaning they can no longer be grouped together in the form of tissues or organs. As such, vaccines do not contain “parts of fetuses.”
Vaccines also do not contain fetal cells. Once the vaccine viruses are grown in the cells, the next step in the manufacturing process is to purify the vaccine viruses away from the cells and substances used to help cells grow. If you have ever picked blueberries, you can think of this part of the process as similar. While you are picking, you might get some of the blueberry plant — stems, leaves and even branches — in your berry bucket, but to use the berries, you remove all of those things, so your pie contains only the blueberries (and any other ingredients you choose to add).
This purification part of the process is important for two reasons. The first, and perhaps most obvious, is the manufacturing reason. From a manufacturer’s perspective, an efficient process that results in the purest possible product makes the final product easier to characterize. However, as consumers, the second, and more important, reason matters more. A pure product will not introduce unnecessary components that could trigger immune responses or affect us in other ways.
6 Likes
It’s a sign of how divided the public is. Who could have predicted even 10 years ago, that the person appointed to be the secretary of health and human services would be a guy who actually rails against chemtrails? And then you’ll have a substantial amount of the public thinking that it’s just fine and in fact the guy is going to do a lot of good for public health. I mean never mind what your ideology is, what about science? Do we no longer think that adherence to the principles of science is important in making health policy? These days you can put a guy in charge who is an out and out quack and science denialist and he’ll get a significant buy in from the public just because it’s “their side” who does it. Qualifications are 100% irrelevant. It’s 2025, and we have reverted to the middle ages in public health policy where science is irrelevant, and off the wall, raving lunacy conspiracy theories rule the day. Unbelievable. I’m almost 67 years old, and I never thought I’d see stuff like this in our country.
3 Likes
We are entering a period where rapid technological/medical progress is made while at the same time the population is becoming dumber, more polarized and radical. It’ll be interesting to see where this leads to.
4 Likes
I don’t think it is the population becoming dumber, but the absence of sub-editors in communication. Hence mass communication is of a lower quality because rubbish can be publicised without material constraint. This also drives people to being more polarised.
4 Likes
Well, we can already see that civilization is not inevitable. Regression is fully possible. RFKjr doesn’t believe in germ theory (as he said). That’s going back to the time of medical development that speculated about “humors”, and a doctor was the local blacksmith. But this would not be possible unless a large part of the population didn’t hold similar beliefs - “germs are just a theory”, according to the interview RFK gave. How do you hold civilization together when your population is so poorly educated and so deep in wild conspiracy theories that they are fine with guys like this in charge.
If you think we can’t go back in development, think again. We are watching it in real time.
4 Likes
That is a fundamental issue. Cuts to education will only exacerbate this growing trend.
I often wonder if the educated will be seen as wizards and witches and become targets for extermination. We can see they are already becoming targets for harassment.
1 Like
Remember Pol Pot? Education is already villified as being some liberal brainwashing tool.
3 Likes
Beth
#218
This speaks volumes. Sigh.
2 Likes
Bicep
#219
Study just out, Pfizer is worse than Moderna. Not what I had heard:
1 Like
Beth
#220
That is interesting!!! I’ve had many moderna and only one Pfizer.
From years ago, I heard moderna was slightly more effective, but Pfizer generally had less severe side effects. I got the one Pfizer after hearing variety might be helpful.
I wonder if more mild side effects are related to effectiveness?
I had monster reactions to the first few, and many people seemed to guess it meant I had extra protection… that seemed too good to be true and I assumed it was to make people feel better about feeling like death.
1 Like
