Federal patent law defines patent infringement as “mak[ing], us[ing], offer[ing] to sell, or sell[ing]” a patented invention. Not an attorney, but seems like it would be quite a stretch to argue that becoming infected with a virus would fall under one of those categories.
Ideology has been and will always be a guiding force in science. Western genetics was heavily influenced by capitalism. Many concepts in Soviet genetics ended up being closer to correct than competing Western theories, although it took a while for this to be appreciated (e.g., epigenetics).
Philosophers of science Collins and Pinch have an excellent entry-level book on this called "The Golem" that I would strongly recommend to anyone interested. Very accessible and not overly philosophical/jargon-y.
Just like Howard Stern (note, SiriusXM also owns Spotify). They traded a broader audience and greater influence for stability and gigantic paychecks. E.g., in Howard's case, even though his personal influence shrunk, his importance to Sirius/Spotify grew as a fraction of the subscriber base is dedicated to one talent and would otherwise unsubscribe. Howard's deal has been renewed a number of times now. I can't blame anyone involved.
Stern tried to adapt, and with a degree of success. He came from the "Shock Jock", Andrew Dice Clay era, but shifted in recent years to become much softer and "woke".
this makes more sense for Stern because his audience is much narrower than Rogan's. Stern moving from terrestrial radio gave him more "freedom," whereas the same can't be said for Rogan. also, Stern took the deal when he had been established voice in radio for decades, whereas Rogan was (to my understanding) just reaching his height of popularity before the exclusivity deal began.
> this makes more sense for Stern because his audience is much narrower than Rogan's.
In what way was Stern's audience narrower at all than Rogan's? Stern narrowed his audience when he moved to Sirius, but so did Rogan, apparently. When Stern was in syndication and on E!, he had as general an audience as any radio personality (back when people listened to the radio.) Rogan has a very narrow demographic as far as I can see, and virtually that entire demo is a subset of who listened to or watched Stern during what was something like a 15 year long peak.
> Rogan has a very narrow demographic as far as I can see, and virtually that entire demo is a subset of who listened to or watched Stern during what was something like a 15 year long peak.
really? I was under the impression that Rogan skewed much younger. (at least compared to the Stern audience when he made his platform jump.) and sure Stern narrowed his audience when he moved to satellite, but wasn't he already a bit past his prime at that point?
Thanks for the citation. Here is a link to the paper cited in the article you've referenced [1]. It does not make claims that are in disagreement with my previous citations.
Quotes from [1]:
- "The notable evolution of neutralizing breadth after infection with SARS-CoV-2 and the robust enhancement of serologic responses and B cell memory achieved with mRNA vaccination SUGGESTS that convalescent individuals who are vaccinated should enjoy high levels of protection against emerging variants without a need to modify existing vaccines."
- "No statistical methods were used to predetermine sample size. The experiments were not randomized and the investigators were not blinded to allocation during experiments and outcome assessment."
In summary [1] shows that "Vaccination increases all components of the humoral response" [1]. This is well established in the literature, and not really up for debate.
However, the mistake you're making is jumping to the conclusion that higher neutralizing titre levels (or antibodies, anti-RBD IgG, etc) are inherently more beneficial. This has not been demonstrated in the literature yet, and it's extremely difficult to determine at what level someone is "protected enough".
Here's a direct quote from the article you linked to, supporting this fact:
- "At the moment, the quantity and vigour of a person’s neutralizing antibodies are the best markers for assessing whether that person is protected from infection and illness — although scientists are still working to confirm that antibody levels can serve as a realistic stand-in for immune protection."
> Your first two citations merely suggest
The evidence provided by [2] goes well beyond "mere suggestion", with statistically significant findings and N = 52,238.
Quote from [2]:
- "The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated"
Fauci isn't an inventor or owner of any COVID vaccine patents.
Even if Fauci was an inventor on them, his patents would be owned by the Federal Government. By Federal Law, inventors of government patents are entitled to a maximum royalty of $150k/year.
> Why take the time to argue a point that's easily disproven?
>> I've heard that Dr. Fauci is a partial owner on some patents
> Fauci isn't an inventor or owner of any COVID vaccine patents.
Why take the time to argue a tiny subpoint of my point, by erecting a strawman and linking to a fact checker that is political by its very nature..
Which spends the first half of the page attempting to discredit the supposed author of the point, and then, hilariously, admits that, in fact, Fauci is listed as inventor of at least four patents, even if possibly unrelated to COVID-19 vaccines etc, and the so-called fact checker even said they actually reached out to NIAID for comment on those patents and never heard back.
You know that all US parents are published, after approximately 1 year, in publicly searchable databases, right? I’m sure NIAID had better things to do… like fighting a pandemic.
The real question is why you are so afraid of the vaccine, so as to promote FUD? Or is it just displaced fear from a virus demonstrating that you’re not quite as in charge of your life as you thought?
Why in the hell would big Pharma pay any media to promote the vaccines? Most of the revenue is already booked from state actors, and they're literally selling the cure to a global pandemic. They don't need to juice demand - such a ploy could only hurt them. Frankly, continuation of the pandemic via poor adoption of the vaccine would increase future business in the form of boosters, etc.
> Why in the hell would big Pharma pay any media to promote the vaccines?
To make more money. Do you know there is clear and abundant data that giving the recovered the vaccine provides zero benefit? Not only theoretically, but empirically too, in all countries, across the vaccine trial data and real world data. But if 1/3 of Americans are recovered, that would drop vaccine sales by 33%. Even worse, it would make the vaccine look less effective, as by giving the vax to the recovered it juices the numbers so that a smaller % of people get COVID post vax. A 33% drop in vaccine sales would amount to tens of billions of dollars in lost profits. So a rational actor would easily spend more than $10B in PR costs to promote max-vax.
This is just how the publishing/media industry works. Even when industries aren't explicitly buying ads, they are paying PR firms to inconspicuously plant Op-Eds and nudge editorial. Not unique to Big Pharma or vaccines. Moderna or Pfizer themselves don't even have to be involved! Outside shareholders can indepdently pay for the PR dirty work.
What's interesting with vaccines is how blatant it is. Caused me to reevaluate the importance to abolishing copyrights, giving everyone the right to be a publisher, and removing the monopoly power of our current media. It's disgusting how true knowledge is stifled and lies are propped up. It's much harder to propagate lies when there are millions of capable publishers, not just 10.
From personal experience I have seen quite young fit and healthy person die of COVID. If you saw it first hand , you would know how quickly and dangerously this virus takes over . Having a vaccine with even a 50 percent chance is a no brainer to prevent the devastating damage this virus can cause in a very short time. And so is wearing masks.
I've seen plenty of the virus first hand. It's bad. ~5x worse than the flu, which everyone knows is awful. (Though of the 1,000+ people in my closest circle, 100x more life has been lost in the past 1.5yr from things other than COVID, despite well over ~100+ known contacts with it). If you haven't had it, looking at the numbers, I think the vaccine is a good bet, increasingly good as your age and/or weight increases.
But a vaccine provides 0 benefit (0 with a capital "Z"), if you've recovered. It's an absolute no brainer that this is the case. If your body wasn't capable of learning an immune resistance from actually having the virus, then vaccines wouldn't work. When public health figures claim that recovered should get vaccinated anyway, even though it goes against theory, empirical data, and clinical trial data, you have to question their credibility. Then you look at their dissolution of the placebo control group. Then you look at their decision to stop tracking breakthrough cases. None of this is acceptable. One must have high standards.
When you have an idea in engineering and you think it's amazing, you have to keep measuring and questioning that. If your data shows that it's not as amazing as you claim, the solution isn't to hide evidence, it's to keep going, keep measuring, and try harder.
The thing I don't understand is some people's implied or sometimes explicitly expressed belief that medical researchers are suppressing promising COVID treatments for some reason.
Clinical trial research is perhaps the most complex and challenging type of research to get right. It's necessary to be critical of clinical research and meta-analyses, so pointing out serious research flaws doesn't mean someone is rooting against a safe, effective, cheap COVID treatment. The VAST majority of candidate drugs don't work well even for the intended indication, let alone have serendipitous effect in a different disease.
>Clinical trial research is perhaps the most complex and challenging type of research to get right
Cool, now compare the length, breadth, and historical use of ivermectin, hcq, etc, and experimental never-before-used-on-humans-en-masse mRNA injections.
