Bay Area health officers fast-track regional stay-at-home order

In response to John from Adobe-Meadow you wrote:

“It falls under the 1st amendment to the BofR, specifically peaceable assembly.”

But peaceful assembly under the constitution is NOT commerce. You can look at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment) and it clearly shows a private business activity is NOT covered by the First Amendment, because that peaceful assembly is for POLITICAL DISCOURSE and PETITION. You surely should have known that. Now Commercial Speech is protected. Meaning your advertisements are protected, and lobbying for laws, but that is it. You wrote:

“You might also look under Article IV in the US Constitution regarding immunities.”

What specifically under Article IV says that peaceful assembly is commercial activity? It might make it so a contract in one state establishes that the same parties are bound in other states, but that is it also. You didn’t document that well either. So when you wrote:

“Both documents the cops have sworn to uphold.”

They will uphold it, it is just that you are making a very erroneous argument here. THe police have the duty to enforce any laws that are constitutional and serve the public safety. You wrote:

“You’ll find very little support for authoritarian (and French laundry attending) Newsome among the men with guns he needs to enforce his unlawful order.”

You are not a judge, I will wait till the courts make that determination.

Peter,

Just understand that there are so many things not being even considered here. The 2 Months exposure is VERY short term. Pfizers vaccine is an mRNA drug, thus it changes the way proteins are made in the cells. That can have significant impact on so many other areas not yet tested. In fact mRNA has only been used for autoimmune disease and cancer, both of which are not even similar to COVID.

For example Thalidomide

The thing that is scary is that it took 60 years to find out how Thalidomide caused the damage it was found in this article.

https://www.dana-farber.org/newsroom/news-releases/2018/after-60-years–scientists-uncover-how-thalidomide-produced-birth-defects/

Specifically:

“Building on years of previous research, the researchers found that thalidomide acts by promoting the degradation of AN UNEXPECTEDLY WIDE RANGE OF TRANSCRIPTION FACTORS – cell proteins that help switch genes on or off – including one called SALL4. The result is the complete removal of SALL4 from cells.”

mRNA is a TRANSCRIPTOR isn’t it?

Can the COVID vaccines be proven to NOT disrupt other proteins?

We need to know this before using it.

Peter,

You do have that choice, but the FDA cannot ignore that risk.

The Thalidomide disaster took place over a short time here is some info about it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal). Fortunately, the FDA blocked it from use in the U.S.

“In the U.S., the FDA refused approval to market thalidomide, SAYING FURTHER STUDIES WERE NEEDED. This reduced the impact of thalidomide in U.S. patients. The refusal was largely due to pharmacologist Frances Oldham Kelsey WHO WITHSTOOD PRESSURE FROM THE RICHARDSON-MERRELL PHARMACEUTICALS CO. She subsequently was given a distinguished service award by President John F. Kennedy.[2] Although thalidomide was not approved for sale in the United States at the time, OVER 2.5 MILLION TABLETS HAD BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO OVER 1,000 PHYSICIANS DURING A CLINICAL TESTING PROGRAMME. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT NEARLY 20,000 PATIENTS, SEVERAL HUNDRED OF WHOM WERE PREGNANT WOMEN, WERE GIVEN THE DRUG TO HELP ALLEVIATE MORNING SICKNESS OR AS A SEDATIVE, AND AT LEAST 17 CHILDREN WERE CONSEQUENTLY BORN IN THE UNITED STATES WITH THALIDOMIDE-ASSOCIATED DEFORMITIES.[41][42] While pregnant, children’s television host Sherri Finkbine took an over-the-counter sedative her husband had purchased in Europe.[43] When she learned that thalidomide was causing fetal deformities she wanted to abort her pregnancy, but the laws of Arizona allowed abortion only if the mother’s life was in danger. Finkbine traveled to Sweden to have the abortion. Thalidomide was found to have deformed the fetus.[41]

For denying the application despite the pressure from Richardson-Merrell Pharmaceuticals Co., Kelsey eventually received the President’s Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service at a 1962 ceremony with President John F. Kennedy. In September 2010, the FDA honored Kelsey with the first Kelsey award, given annually to an FDA staff member. This came 50 years after Kelsey, then a new medical officer at the agency, first reviewed the application from the William S. Merrell Pharmaceuticals Company of Cincinnati.[44]

Cardiologist Helen B. Taussig learned of the damaging effects of the drug thalidomide on newborns and in 1967, testified before Congress on this matter after a trip to Germany where she worked with infants with phocomelia (severe limb deformities). AS A RESULT OF HER EFFORTS, THALIDOMIDE WAS BANNED IN THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE.[45]”

We cannot allow desperation from causing another potential disaster. This Vaccine will eventually be used in 330,000,000 people. I just think we need to complete our studies before taking that kind of risk.

Peter,

The reason why your logic doesn’t make sense is this.

Say the vaccine does have as much as only a 4% chance of causing birth defects on a child and they survive.

Let’s say we have a little at 80 million women in the country having children get the vaccine.

We will result in at least 3,200,000 potential disabled children.

Lets say that the average cost of a healthy child to get to 18 is $240,000.

That means the public cost will come to about $768,000,000,000. A Disabled child will be entitled to disability insurances and health care. WE CANNOT AFOFFORD THAT AND YOUK NOW IT.

Peter,

RNA has a life span of 2 minutes per the Science Daily journal article titled “RNA molecules live short lives “ (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170712201054.htm#:~:text=A%20new%20method%20to%20measure,times%20shorter%20than%20previously%20assumed.) which states:

“A new method to measure the half-life of RNA molecules has now been created by researchers. Their study revealed that commonly used methods provide distorted results AND THAT RNA MOLECULES LIVE AN AVERAGE OF ONLY TWO MINUTES, TEN TIMES SHORTER THAN PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED.

mRNA has short life span from this article titled “ Non-invasive measurement of mRNA decay reveals translation initiation as the major determinant of mRNA stability “ published in eLife found here (https://elifesciences.org/articles/32536)

“Abstract

The cytoplasmic abundance of mRNAs is strictly controlled through a balance of production and degradation. Whereas the control of mRNA synthesis through transcription has been well characterized, less is known about the regulation of mRNA turnover, and a consensus model explaining the wide variations in mRNA decay rates remains elusive. Here, we combine non-invasive transcriptome-wide mRNA production and stability measurements with selective and acute perturbations to demonstrate that mRNA degradation is tightly coupled to the regulation of translation, and that a competition between translation initiation and mRNA decay -but not codon optimality or elongation- is the major determinant of mRNA stability in yeast. OUR REFINED MEASUREMENTS ALSO REVEAL A REMARKABLY DYNAMIC TRANSCRIPTOME WITH AN AVERAGE MRNA HALF-LIFE OF ONLY 4.8 MIN – MUCH SHORTER THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT. Furthermore, global mRNA destabilization by inhibition of translation initiation induces a dose-dependent formation of processing bodies in which mRNAs can decay over time.

RNA needs to be constantly produced, ironically via DNA transcription and it is described by the NIH website found here (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21189/#:~:text=An%20Overview%20of%20RNA%20Synthesis,large%20enzyme%20called%20RNA%20polymerase. ) and it is defined as:

“An Overview of RNA Synthesis: RNA synthesis, or transcription, is the process of transcribing DNA nucleotide sequence information into RNA sequence information. RNA synthesis is catalyzed by a large enzyme called RNA polymerase.”

So let’s say you have 1,000,000,000 strands mRNA injected into the body and it has a half life of 5 minutes 150 minutes it will be less than 1 strand.

Let’s say you have 1,000,000,000 strands of RNA that you made with the mRNA since the have life of that RNA is only 2 minutes, it takes only 60 minutes to have less than one strand of existing RNA.

Something in the research doesn’t seem to ADD up here at all, does it?

A day is 1440 Minutes and 30 days is 43200 minutes.

The Half life of mRNA being 5 minutes you would need to have 2 to the power of (432000/5) strands in the injection of the vaccine for it to last 30 days.

The RNA would have to be 2 to the power of (432000/2) strands in the injection of the vaccine for it to last 30 days.

2 to the power of 100 comes to 1.26765E+30 strands, the calculation overloaded my Excel for the real numbers. Are they saying they are injecting that many strands of mRNA?

I surely hope the FDA is aware of this problem and it asks how did the overcome it? To me the only way to do so is alter the DNA.

In response to Peter Carpenter you wrote:

“I am not BUT the process does not require the RNA to do anything once its message has been deliver and then the cells produce the spike blocking protein:

“Once the instructions (mRNA) are inside the muscle cells, the cells use them to make the protein piece. After the protein piece is made, the cell breaks down the instructions and gets rid of them.”

Next, the cell displays the protein piece on its surface. Our immune systems recognize that the protein doesn’t belong there and begin building an immune response and making antibodies, like what happens in natural infection against COVID-19.””

Peter, in order for it to work the mRNA must produce an ANTIBODY not a protein on an immune cell membrane. But if the mRNA injection stops producing the ANTIBODYS within one day, that means you are only stuck with a limited supply that will destroy itself in short time. If proteins have a half life of 5 days and you manage to produce 1,000,000,000 antibodies in 140 days they will all be gone. Less than a half of a year.

Please read this:

“Antibodies work by recognising and sticking to specific proteins, such as those found on the surfaces of viruses and bacteria, in a highly specific way. When the body encounters a microbe for the first time, immune cells produce antibodies that specifically recognise proteins associated with that particular microbe.”

THEN the ANTIBODY marks the viral body for attack from the immune response called COMPLEMENT which is a protein made up by the marker point of an antibody where as many as 12-15 amino acids synthesizes the COMPLEMENT protein that lyses the cell attached to it.

Thus if the Antibody count goes down to the critical point, it cannot fight an invading organism, like the COVID virus.

“Durability of these effects remains an open question. However, follow-up data from a phase I study of Moderna’s product, spanning 4 months after the first dose, showed a persistent neutralizing antibody response, though with modest declines over that period, particularly in older participants.”

So you are in fact proving my point, that this TREATMENT is not actually a vaccine, it is a pro active treatment that creates a synthetic antibody, but does not “TEACH” the body tp produce it’s own. Also you called the degradation a “modest decline” which means it is losing the effectiveness doesn’t it?

Sorry I was on my phone earlier, the definition of ACQUIRED immunity is:

“Acquired immunity: Immunity acquired by infection or vaccination (active immunity) or by the transfer of antibody or lymphocytes from an immune donor (passive immunity). Acquired immunity is in contrast to innate immunity (natural immunity).

Definition of Acquired immunity – MedicineNetwww.medicinenet.com › acquired_immunity › definition (https://www.medicinenet.com/acquired_immunity/definition.htm#:~:text=Acquired%20immunity%3A%20Immunity%20acquired%20by,innate%20immunity%20(natural%20immunity).)

The human body gets acquired immunity from this process:

“Immunity is acquired actively when a person is exposed to foreign substances and the immune system responds. Passive immunity is when antibodies are transferred from one host to another. … Artificially Acquired Passive Immunity – This involves the introduction of antibodies rather than antigens to the human body.”

Passive Immunity is not long lasting, and the people hearing the news gets the wrong idea because of Pfizer’s press releases, Passive immunity is defined as “Passive immunity provides immediate protection against an antigen, but does not provide long-lasting protection.” (https://clinicalinfo.hiv.gov/en/glossary/passive-immunity#:~:text=Passive%20immunity%20provides%20immediate%20protection,not%20provide%20long%2Dlasting%20protection.)

Why are we spending billions of dollars to get a SHORT TERM fix? Why are we allowing this to be considered a “solution” to “normalize” our way of life?

The reality is that Pfizer’s strategy is to use COVID as a CASH COW. And it appears to be working. Unless sound SCIENTIFIC minds make the determination that this process is still not living up to promised results (FDA) and says no to it.

Peter,

In what way did I cherry pick? I used reputable information you cannot contradict.

Where is your proof of that I don’t understand science? I have an associates degree in life sciences, and was working with my father at the Harvard School of Public Health on medical research in high school.

His expertise is designing equipment to do molecular detection and and construction of complex proteins. I worked in a lab that was doing research on HIV. I was trained to operate spectrophotometers and spectrofluorometers.

If you want look up “Instrumental Studies of Porphyrin Compounds Obtained From Pyrrole Aldehyde Condensations by Dr. Jack M Goldstein Published in 1959.

In what way am I DANGEROUS? Is it dangerous to demand good science?

The bottom line is that is is NOT a “true” VACCINE, because it does not educate the body to synthesize the antibody for COVID without continual injections, the science proves it.

You can try to personally attack me as much as you want, but you cannot deny that my observation is NOYT unfounded.

Peter Carpenter:

You reported:

“was consistent with the safety profile for the approximately 38,000 participants with median follow up of 2 months and also did not raise specific safety concerns. The more common solicited adverse reactions were injection site reactions (841%), fatigue (629%) headache (551%), muscle pain (383%), chills (319%), joint pain (236%), fever (142%); “

I really hope you forgot to put a decimal place in those percentages you provided. If so the correct report information would be:

“was consistent with the safety profile for the approximately 38,000 participants with median follow up of 2 months and also did not raise specific safety concerns. The more common solicited adverse reactions were injection site reactions (84.1%), fatigue (62.9%) headache (55.1%), muscle pain (38.3%), chills (31.9%), joint pain (23.6%), fever (14.2%); “

You stated:

“severe adverse reactions occurred in 00% to 46% of participants were more frequent after Dose 2 than after Dose 1and were generally less frequent in participants 55 years of age (28%) as compared to younger participants (46%)”

Again let’s hope you simply gave the wrong percentage due to a decimal point and it really said:

““severe adverse reactions occurred in 00% to 4.6% of participants were more frequent after Dose 2 than after Dose 1and were generally less frequent in participants 55 years of age (2.8%) as compared to younger participants (4.6%)”

I am assuming you missed the decimal point again and as much a 4.6% after the second dose. What is the specific “severe” reactions? And if you use that percentage on say a population of 100,000,000 people that means as much as 4,600,000 people will be anticipated to have a “severe” adverse reaction.

Does this mean it is SAFE? IDK because this report doesn’t state the actual severe responses. Again, I want the FDA meeting televised so we can see the data itself to make sure it was not manipulated in any way. The bottom line is these companies have been found to manipulate their research on many occasions. It was reported in the New York Times in the article titled “Ezperts Conclude Pfizer Manipulated Studies” found here (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/health/research/08drug.html)

“The drug maker Pfizer earlier this decade manipulated the publication of scientific studies to bolster the use of its epilepsy drug Neurontin for other disorders, while suppressing research that did not support those uses, according to experts who reviewed thousands of company documents for plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the company.

Pfizer’s tactics included delaying the publication of studies that had found no evidence the drug worked for some other disorders, “spinning” negative data to place it in a more positive light, and bundling negative findings with positive studies to neutralize the results, according to written reports by the experts, who analyzed the documents at the request of the plaintiffs’ lawyers.”

In fact they were found GUILTY of it even the Supreme Court would not reduce the damages in the report titled “US High Court leaves intact $142 million verdict against Pfizer” found here (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-pfizer/us-high-court-leaves-intact-142-million-verdict-against-pfizer-idUSBRE9B80K020131209)

Specifically:

“WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left intact a $142 million jury verdict against Pfizer Inc over the marketing of the epilepsy drug Neurontin.”

So, I have good cause to be cautiously optimistic here. I pray we are not getting skewed medical research.

Peter Carpenter,

No argument, I hope that at least one of the candidates works out.

Again IDK about Pfizers one because the information is so sketchy at this time. It may still be VERY good, I just don’t have the information yet.

I think you an I agree that as soon as we can get a good safe vaccine, we are first in line. I am not an anti-vaxxer in any way, I have always gotten myself any vaccine I can.

In the meantime, we still have to practice safe living, god I just almost said safe sex.

I want all of us to do what we can to prevent spread, you think I am happy? I am miserable because I live alone, and I cannot go to any places I feel good to be around people. I know I am suffering from depression, I am even having nightmares about my Father that died in 2007 every night now.

By the way,

AstraZeneca just issues a PEER REVIEWED report.

CNN reported it here (https://www.cnn.com/webview/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-12-08-20-intl/h_f4092faa9173b5b93177c46389b8296a)

It is in the LANCET

WHERE is Pfizers research?

That would be considered a severe reaction, I didn’t comment on the specifics before.

This report indicated that the real percentage of severe side effects would be 0.5%.

The problem that arises is that is the death rate for COVID infection is only 0.19%

Severe side effects occurring from a vaccine at 2.5 times the death rate is not a very good safety standard. This is because those iatrogenic diseases can be life long problems, even regarding the lack of long term safety protocols.

I am scared because there seems to be a preference for the government to use one technique over all the rest, with disregard of long term proof of safety.

I will recalculate my original estimation, say 100,000,000 people get vaccinated and .5% have the serious side effects, that comes to 500,000 people.

Again, that is what we KNOW of NOW, not what may occur in the future with unknown adverse reactions because of the shortened testing.

To me, there are so many questions still, I pray the FDA sees that this is not a good gamble.

Peter Carpenter,

It took less than 2 days for a significant adverse reaction that was not disclosed in the Pfizer research to appear in Britain. The story is by the Associated Press found here (https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-64ddccd70c38a39f880da27941db3540). It stated:

“LONDON (AP) — U.K. regulators said Wednesday that people who have a “significant history” of allergic reactions shouldn’t receive the new Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine while they investigate two adverse reactions that occurred on the first day of the country’s mass vaccination program.

Professor Stephen Powis, national medical director for the National Health Service in England, said health authorities were acting on a recommendation from the Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.

“As is common with new vaccines the MHRA have advised on a precautionary basis that people with a significant history of allergic reactions do not receive this vaccination after two people with a history of significant allergic reactions responded adversely yesterday,” Powis said in a statement. “Both are recovering well.”

Why wasn’t this identified prior to mass injections? Because they are RUSHING the process. In fact 50 million people have significant issues with allergies in the U.S. as seen here (https://www.aafa.org/allergy-facts/#:~:text=More%20than%2050%20million%20Americans,types%20of%20allergies%20each%20year.&text=Allergies%20are%20the%206th%20leading%20cause%20of%20chronic%20illness%20in%20the%20U.S.). Which is 15% of the country.

It looks like the “SAMPLES” of the Pfizer study didn’t seem to have these people in it, right? They don’t even know what causes this problem and what allergies

I hope the FDA takes this into account.

Me 2:

In what way am I irresponsible? I am disclosing information that already existed, Pfizer could be argued as “manipulating” their sample group to avoid having to say there is a “KNOWN” risk. This exclusion of these people were probably WELL KNOWN by Pfizer that it would have elevated risks of adverse reactions, and it did not want to report them, right?

This is why we do not have a PEER REVIEWED study, the review process would have likely exposed this risk.

They have been caught doing that in the past with other research regarding the drug Neurontin. The case information can be found here (“https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-pfizer/us-high-court-leaves-intact-142-million-verdict-against-pfizer-idUSBRE9B80K020131209)

The UK warnings are valid. And are necessary for the safety of those where the vaccine has not been proven safe.

This is not irresponsible, in fact it is well established that Pfizer might be acting “VERY” irresponsible, and I am just putting the pieces together.

Peter Carpenter et al,

Here is the list of people excluded from the Pfizer test sample, thereby completely making the test samples not random and not consistent with the general public. This is from THEIR OWN WEBSITE titled “ STUDY TO DESCRIBE THE SAFETY, TOLERABILITY, IMMUNOGENICITY, AND EFFICACY OF RNA VACCINE CANDIDATES AGAINST COVID-19 IN HEALTHY ADULTS, NCT04368728 “ here (https://www.pfizer.com/science/find-a-trial/nct04368728-0)

They only INCLUDED the following people:

“Male or female participants between the ages of 18 and 55 years, inclusive, 65 and 85 years, inclusive, or ≥12 years, inclusive, at randomization (dependent upon study phase). Note that participants <18 years of age cannot be enrolled in the EU.

Participants who are willing and able to comply with all scheduled visits, vaccination plan, laboratory tests, lifestyle considerations, and other study procedures.

HEALTHY PARTICIPANTS WHO ARE DETERMINED BY MEDICAL HISTORY, PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, AND CLINICAL JUDGMENT OF THE INVESTIGATOR TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN THE STUDY.

Participants who, in the judgment of the investigator, are at risk for acquiring COVID-19.

Capable of giving personal signed informed consent”

They EXCLUDED:

OTHER MEDICAL OR PSYCHIATRIC CONDITION INCLUDING RECENT (WITHIN THE PAST YEAR) OR ACTIVE SUICIDAL IDEATION/BEHAVIOR OR LABORATORY ABNORMALITY THAT MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF STUDY PARTICIPATION OR, IN THE INVESTIGATOR’S JUDGMENT, MAKE THE PARTICIPANT INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE STUDY.

HISTORY OF SEVERE ADVERSE REACTION ASSOCIATED WITH A VACCINE AND/OR SEVERE ALLERGIC REACTION (EG, ANAPHYLAXIS) TO ANY COMPONENT OF THE STUDY INTERVENTION(S).

ANTICIPATING THE NEED FOR IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT WITHIN THE NEXT 6 MONTHS

IMMUNOCOMPROMISED INDIVIDUALS WITH KNOWN OR SUSPECTED IMMUNODEFICIENCY, AS DETERMINED BY HISTORY AND/OR LABORATORY/PHYSICAL EXAMINATION.

BLEEDING DIATHESIS OR CONDITION ASSOCIATED WITH PROLONGED BLEEDING THAT WOULD, IN THE OPINION OF THE INVESTIGATOR, CONTRAINDICATE INTRAMUSCULAR INJECTION.

WOMEN WHO ARE PREGNANT OR BREASTFEEDING.

INDIVIDUALS WHO RECEIVE TREATMENT WITH IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE THERAPY, INCLUDING CYTOTOXIC AGENTS OR SYSTEMIC CORTICOSTEROIDS, EG, FOR CANCER OR AN AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE, OR PLANNED RECEIPT THROUGHOUT THE STUDY.

RECEIPT OF BLOOD/PLASMA PRODUCTS OR IMMUNOGLOBULIN, FROM 60 DAYS BEFORE STUDY INTERVENTION ADMINISTRATION OR PLANNED RECEIPT THROUGHOUT THE STUDY.”

There were more but I wanted to cover those used in the entire project. So, only included those that had no other medical conditions AT ALL and they excluded all of the above, and expected us to think it was a good “scientific” sample of the general public, REALLY?

What misinformation is there here? It is their own disclosures.

Again, EVERY vaccine that I have been able to take, where there is a reliable safety record, I have taken. I am not an anti-vaxxer.

But I Am a very careful reader, with a skeptical eye, just like Me 2 wrote, and I see the glaring problems here. In effect you cannot claim any misinformation nor any of my writing is a false representation of the medical research, can you?

By the way Accutane, did me serious harm when I took it.

Other side effect were:

“Accutane (isotretinoin) is prescribed to treat severe, difficult to control acne. Common side effects can include dry skin, chapped lips, vision issues, and joint pain. The more serious, severe side effects of isotretinoin include birth defects, mental health problems, and stomach issues.

I almost committed suicide and had a severe depressive state because I took it when I was in high school. Unfortunately I didn’t learn about those side effects until 1997. Too late to file a complaint.

When the FDA approves this vaccine it will also remove any adverse impact liability under the Vaccination Adverse Reaction Protection laws. This is why Pfizer wants to get this to market so badly. It makes it almost a no lose situation, if the Vaccine proves out to not work in the long run, they aren’t going to be accountable to it.

Peter,

Well, maybe the FDA scientific standards are wrong? I know they are trying to eliminate extra variables so they can determine a “Cause and Effect” correlation.

BUT.

If you cannot get an accurate general population sample so that you cannot get an accurate impact on the general public, that is what is called manipulated data and manipulated results, right?

These kinds of studies wind up setting up people as just another big picture guinea pig. There is NO real safety under this model for the general population. I thought the FDA and other researchers discovered this 40 years ago, and was working to eliminate this risk.

Peter Carpenter,

You used the language:

“Peter Carpenter WAS the Executive Vice President of the ALZA Corporation, President of the ALZA Development Corporation and has had significant experience with the FDA, NDAs and Patient Package Inserts and holds three medical device patents.”

ARE YOU PETER CARPENTER, this sentence implies you are NOT him?

Me 2,

Simply saying someone is an “anti-vaxxer” is not a logical approach nor is it going to persuade anyone because you are doing nothing but a personal attack. It is just an adjective you assign to me, which in no way scientifically disproves my comments. Period.

Anon,

I have a big disagreement with these people, but they have the right to their “beliefs” and to express them. But I also have the equal right to “fact-check” or “nit-pick” any claims they make. If they bring up anything that can be disproved by reliable sources, then I will simply bring it up.

In any event, I really hope we don’t see a major explosion of adverse reactions on the Medical Care professionals in this country because they use this vaccine and it proves to be a bad one. This is the only motivation I have. We already have a shortage of Medical Care workers, especially in the ICU field.