TigerDoc

Is there something reported about this strain being modified or resistant, or are you raising that as a possibility? Those would give us different reasons to worry.

"Biodefense" supplies a possible rationale, not a blanket justification. How legit or bogus it would be will probably depend on some classified materials that we probably won't get soon, but who knows. Whether there was a credible threat and whether this was worth the risks is what I'd want to establish. :dunno:

Yes, there’s already some published research from 2008:

quote:

---

Vesicular stomatitis virus-based vaccines protect nonhuman primates against aerosol challenge with Ebola and Marburg viruses
Thomas W Geisbert et al. Vaccine. 2008.

Considerable progress has been made over the last decade in developing candidate preventive vaccines that can protect nonhuman primates against Ebola and Marburg viruses. A vaccine based on recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) seems to be particularly robust as it can also confer protection when administered as a postexposure treatment. While filoviruses are not thought to be transmitted by aerosol in nature the inhalation route is among the most likely portals of entry in the setting of a bioterrorist event. At present, all candidate filoviral vaccines have been evaluated against parenteral challenges but none have been tested against an aerosol exposure. Here, we evaluated our recombinant VSV-based Zaire ebolavirus (ZEBOV) and Marburg virus (MARV) vaccines against aerosol challenge in cynomolgus macaques. All monkeys vaccinated with a VSV vector expressing the glycoprotein of ZEBOV were completely protected against an aerosol exposure of ZEBOV. Likewise, all monkeys vaccinated with a VSV vector expressing the glycoprotein of MARV were completely protected against an aerosol exposure of MARV. All control animals challenged by the aerosol route with either ZEBOV or MARV succumbed. Interestingly, disease in control animals appeared to progress slower than previously seen in macaques exposed to comparable doses by intramuscular injection.

---

LINK

quote:

---

Not as hilarious as Rudy’s hair dye running down his face at The Four Seasons but close.

---

It seems the passage of time is compressing these two glorious moments into one:

November 7, 2020, Washington (indoors):


November 19, 2020, Baltimore (outdoors):


And b/c for lagniappe, here he is getting Boratted (also released fall 2020, creating a trifecta of glory for Rudes in just one short season):

It's like a Veep scene. He quotes the NKVD chief to Smith and then has to snipe about rehabbing the witness. :lol:

Trust the plan.

scintillating content. :lol:

If they can define American control as freeing them, they can make that work.

quote:

---

What was your experience regarding physicians being able to treat Covid according to their judgment?

---

I was working in large medical similar to hers which had fewer constraints early then more over time and there was always a lot of constraints on isolation, but a lot less on treatment. In the early days, the intensivists had a lot of room for improvisation (they were extrapolating from SARS-1 and flu treatment, and swapping ideas from far-flung colleagues, etc.), but there wasn’t yet much evidence, much less established protocols. Eventually, though, our system developed protocols based on what was coming out at the time.

That isn’t unique to Covid in the systems I’ve worked in because hospital practice almost always constrains what an individual physician can do, but Covid made that process unusually visible and under the media microscope and it happened pretty rapidly and intensely.

Where I’d probably separate from your interpretation comes in the next part. “Physicians practicing within increasingly tight institutional constraints” is super-recognizable from my own experience. “Viable treatments were suppressed in order to make the vaccines the only option” though is a much bigger claim re: why those constraints developed and my own experience wouldn’t get me there.

Tucker is good in that format. I agree. I guess I’m trying to distinguish giving Bowden a platform from giving her a persuasive platform outside the people already inclined to hear her out. I wouldn’t write off everybody who’s soured on Tucker as lacking intellectual curiosity, though. That’s kind of the interesting part of this thread to me. Lots of the posters ITT are actually pretty sympathetic to the Covid critique yet still don’t trust him.

quote:

---

my point was that Tucker is really valuable as an interviewer. I can't think of anyone with such a large platform who has such excellent interviews. I don't really care what he says as a pundit.

---

I think AlwysATgr’s point is about Tucker’s low credibility going beyond just punditry. Tucker might give Bowden more reach, but at this point he may also make some people less likely to give her a fair hearing. This thread is kind of demonstrating both at once.