Head Of EU Commission Wants To Ban Nuremberg Code.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: myselfaswell

Computer says no on the gene therapy nonsense.

The vaccines that use mRNA technology are not gene therapy because they do not alter your genes.

www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk...
www.webmd.com...
www.reuters.com...

Computer might say no, Stefan Oelrich (head of the Pharmaceuticals Division and member of the Board of Management of Bayer AG) says the opposite:

"Ultimately the mRNA vaccines are an example for that cellular gene therapy. I always like to say if we had surveyed 2 years ago, the public, would you like to take gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body, we would have probably had a 95% refusal rate."

Link to video: twitter.com...

a reply to: karl 12

Even if they did it wouldn't matter in the long run.

Every dystopian dictatorship eventually crumbles when the people have finally reached their limits.

Eventually, these criminals will face the music, even without the code.

The ones who rise up and remove them from power will write a new code and prosecute the cabal accordingly.

They will try just about everything to stay in power and suppress the rest of us, but all good things come to an end at some point. Their attacks on democracy now, will prove futile in the long run.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Bloodworth
No I cant , but I remember reading that scientist need a minimum of 2 to 3 years of data collection before they can state any information.

I found this (What Happens in a Clinical Trial?) and this (How were researchers able to develop COVID-19 vaccines so quickly?), and it looks like they give/gave more importance to the number of people involved in the trials than on the time it takes. The time was shortened by superimposing the trials, so while phase 2 was still going they started phase 3.

The result was that some things were only discovered during phase 3 when they could have been discovered during phase 2, if they had taken the usual time to do it.

From the first link it looks like even after FDA approval, any medication is still considered as being in phase 4 of the trials, so it looks like we have been used as guinea pigs for far longer than we thought.

PS: Personally, I consider we lack enough data for mid and long term side effects, that's why I waited 9 or 10 months before taking the vaccine, and I only did it because I didn't want my sisters, who live with me, to feel responsible for infecting me in case that happened, as they contact many more people than I do (I mostly work alone) on their work and it is easier for them to be infected (both were vaccinated 5 or 6 months before I was).
As I'm not that worried about long term effects on myself I decided the pros were more than the cons I decided to be vaccinated.

PPS: no side effects to report after 2 months.

I wish I knew what was really going on.
Or maybe I dont?

a reply to: karl 12

That article is a little confusing, with some arts repeated and making references to texts they do not provide, but after looking around for more information (I have the time, as today is a holiday in Portugal) it looks like they are jumping to conclusions based on the judge's decision.

First, they say that the Comirnaty was not really approved but do not really present a reason for their reasoning, as the judge's decision doesn't mention that (as far as I could see), it mentions only that the DOD could not mandate the use of the EUA vaccines (as one rule for EUA medications is that the patients should be warned of any alternatives, if they exist) but says nothing regarding Comirnaty being approved or not. That even appears to mean that it was considered that there was an alternative not under an EUA, but my understanding of US legal language is not as good as it is with Portuguese.

Second, they confuse what a EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) and a IND (Investigational New Drug) license are. An EUA means that the (in this case) vaccines were allowed to be used because there was an emergency and there was no alternative for the effect the vaccines are supposed to have. It says nothing about EUA medications being experimental. In fact, an EUA can only be given for a medication that has already passed the phase 2 and has at least two months data from phase 3, so close to reach approval request status. Considering an EUA can also be used to allow new uses for an already licensed product, it doesn't make sense to say that EUA means experimental.

originally posted by: Motorhead
Computer might say no, Stefan Oelrich (head of the Pharmaceuticals Division and member of the Board of Management of Bayer AG) says the opposite:

"Ultimately the mRNA vaccines are an example for that cellular gene therapy. I always like to say if we had surveyed 2 years ago, the public, would you like to take gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body, we would have probably had a 95% refusal rate."

Link to video: twitter.com...

To me, that sounds like he is trying to use the vaccines popularity to present some of their own medications.

Gene therapy is supposed to alter in some way the genes, which none of the mRNA vaccines do.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: myselfaswell
The discussion of forcing mandatory experimental injections is exactly the same as saying, how about we sh!tcan the Nuremberg Code. The exact wording is different but the semantics are the same.

It's not the same because the Nuremberg code goes beyond that.

Also, it's related to the definition of "experimental injections". Who decides when a new (in this case) vaccine is experimental or has gone beyond that phase?

I know I wrote that the response was my opinion, which may be why you didn't address the content, but the opinion was based in common sense.

If a company doesn't know for how long or how much of a drug one must take, if they don't clearly know the outcome or the potential drawbacks, then it follows that the drug is still in experimental (information gathering) stages.

a reply to: zosimov

In that "What Happens in a Clinical Trial?" link I posted they say that even after being approved they keep on gathering data about the effects, so there's no real end for the data gathering process.

That's why all medications (at least in Portugal) ask people to report any side effects not listed on the included information.

a reply to: ArMaP

The drug regimens which are tried and true come with parameters. For example, my dad knew exactly how many chemo treatments he would need, because the experiments for using chemotherapy have been conducted and concluded.

I'm sure I wouldn't be okay with starting chemotherapy without any indication of when it would end, precisely how effective it would be, and what types of side effects to expect.

originally posted by: ArMaP

(I have the time, as today is a holiday in Portugal) it looks like they are jumping to conclusions based on the judge's decision.

Appreciate your assessment ArMap and did see there was some related discussion over on this thread.

a reply to: zosimov

The dose a patient needs is a decision of that person's doctor, not of the medication's maker.

The maker states only the base information to allow the doctor to make the decisions. And, as far as I know, nobody knows with certainty if any medication is going to work as it is supposed to do because every case is a case.

The pharmaceutical companies know what the maximum and optimal doses are in average even before they go through the trials, they do not spend millions making something just to see after if it works. From what I read on that link I posted a few posts back, that's something they confirm during phase 2 of the tests (if I'm not mistaken).

a reply to: ArMaP

I'll check out the link.

I wish the doctors were making the decisions in this case rather than CEOs of Pfizer.
www.today.com...
Just from checking the link so far, I've noticed a broach of protocol--no animal or human cell trials.

ETA: might be wrong about the animal tests; looks like there were simultaneous? moderna mice and human and some very short term monkey trials, excuse me on that
www.nature.com...

The other thing I noticed is that it does seem dosage is evaluated during the trials, perhaps then that information is passed on to the doctors to evaluate and administer?
Phase II takes several months or years--not the later in this case.
Phase III is supposed to have thousands (not billions or 100 percent of the population) of participants and can last years. Clearly this did not happen.
Neither was there a control group in Pfizer's experiment.
www.npr.org...

Just seems wrong on many levels.

More and more do I realise that Brexit was the best thing that happened to the UK. We have our own issues to contend with, but at least we are no longer under the thumbs of the fascist EU.

a reply to: MetalChickAmy

Neither are the EU countries in cases like this, in which each country is responsible for their laws.

Edited to add that, in this particular, nobody mentioned the Nuremberg code, it was only said that it was a good time to think about mandatory vaccines.