Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "FDA advisers vote to recommend Pfizer covid-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11" video.

  1. The US tests on tens of thousands of dogs per year, pretty much all beagles. They're used on renal studies in top US research hospitals as we speak. So if not test on beagles, you got a better idea?
    14
  2.  @CSPORTPDX  University of Georgia? Lol. No. The study was done in Tunisia. The full name of the study is: Enhanced attraction of sand fly vectors of Leishmania infantum to dogs infected with zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis The whole study was 12 dogs, 6 of which were previously infected with parasites. The idea was to see how attracted the flies were to animals that have already been infested with the parasites that the flies lay. They found that dogs in North Africa are hosts for these parasites, which also infect people. So not only was this research done to help people, it was also done to help dogs in the entire North Africa region. Here is their conclusion: The results strongly suggest that L. infantum causes physiological changes in the reservoir host which lead to the host becoming more attractive to both male and female P. perniciosus. These changes are likely to improve the chance of successful transmission because of increased contact with infected hosts and therefore, infected dogs should be particularly targeted in the control of zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis in North Africa. The dogs that were already infected with the parasites were from a previous study, meaning they did not infect them for this particular study. They basically put the dogs on either side of a 3 part chamber, with flies released in the middle. They then counted the flies on either side after 60 minutes. The work was very informative in stopping the spread of parasitic flies in Northern Africa, not that you care. But sure, if you want to talk about dogs being given renal failure in the US then we can do that.
    5
  3.  @paulascott5701  Nope. Animal testing is here to stay, unless you want them to jump from cellular to end of life human trials, or in non-lethal illnesses, health human trials. Most of these are also not for drugs, but just to get the research, so would you condone infecting people with parasites and seeing how flies are attracted to them as a result?
    4
  4.  The Johnnie Walker, The Best A Man Can Get  Which was? What was the test? Where was it performed? Who performed it? I know you don't know the answer to any of these things, but here you are regardless.
    3
  5.  @CSPORTPDX  You know they were given parasites right? They didn't just let them get eaten and call it a day, or have you been watching too much propaganda?
    3
  6.  @cinnamonone4759  Literally all the time. Our entire scientific process is built on grants. They come up with pretty much every biology based breakthrough on the planet using grants.
    3
  7.  @scott1637  Literally just posted the name of the study: Enhanced attraction of sand fly vectors of Leishmania infantum to dogs infected with zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis The propaganda is claims like "Fauci's tests had no scientific use at all. He was doing tests that they already knew the answers for." which is utter nonsense for several reasons.
    3
  8.  @CSPORTPDX  Not really. They are bred for testing and have been for decades. If you don't like it, that's just the reality of it. The only alternative is human testing. The whole letter from Congress is so clueless my other half laughed out loud.
    2
  9.  @aredrose527  The whole point of testing on animals is because we don't want to test on people, so you first.
    2
  10.  @danielleon1781  9 days in 60 minute intervals, 2 dogs at a time. They tested each dog a total of 5 times, so 5 hours per dog over 9 says. Considering the state of dogs in the wild in that region, they were actually much better off than most.
    2
  11.  @paulascott5701  So we should test on people?
    2
  12.  @Perroden  I'm sorry you don't understand the basics of scientific research, but in the US alone they kill tens of millions of animals annually.
    2
  13.  @natashka1982  Really throwing out the Nazi vibes there. All this talk of "animal Nuremburg trials" and you're pushing for actual Nuremburg trial style testing. Amazing that you can both dehumanise your opposition while taking the stance of literal Nazis just to protect some dogs that weren't even killed in the study they were in, a study which measured the attraction of sand flies to dogs previously infected with a parasite the sand flies deliver, which infects thousands in the North Africa region annually, as well as many dogs in the region. The irony is just too much.
    2
  14.  @qweenkoi  Nothing you just said was true. Thanks for playing though.
    2
  15.  @echero2449  That's idiotic.
    2
  16.  @danielleon1781  That's just stupid. The testing was to review parasites in dogs in North Africa. Of course they used dogs.
    2
  17.  @qweenkoi  It isn't, but oh well. You'll keep believing such nonsense, with the media parroting a twisted version of the NIH letter, and zero understanding of the basics of scientific research. Sad really.
    2
  18.  @kurtbennett1164  They didn't die from that, but okay.
    2
  19. No, they're voting on it, that's what the video literally just said.
    1
  20.  @seanhughes1808  And therefore approved for use.
    1
  21.  @seanhughes1808  Their approval means that it is more beneficial for them to take it than not take it, so yes, they are recommending it.
    1
  22.  @seanhughes1808  I'm not projecting anything, they literally said in their reasoning for approval that it is safer for kids to take it than to not take it. How is that bot a recommendation? How dumb are you?
    1
  23.  @qweenkoi  Excess deaths in 2020 were higher than covid deaths. Deaths were underreported, not over.
    1
  24.  @qweenkoi  Again, excess deaths exceed covid deaths. Deaths are underreported. This is 1 example, where people dying undiagnosed is also happening.
    1
  25.  @echero2449  It's just you. They do have humane guidelines in place. The tests were neither unethical or dangerous.
    1
  26.  @aredrose527  The dogs are the unhealthy ones in the region though.
    1
  27.  @qweenkoi  Again, it's irrelevant. The numbers speak for themselves.
    1
  28.  @CSPORTPDX  What about it? The disease they were given had no cure and they were euthanised after. Welcome to science.
    1
  29.  @danielleon1781  Um okay. Again, this is super standard practice. Used to work in a lab where we bred mice and gave them heart failure. If the mice overbreed you have to cut the numbers back without even using them for testing. Mice with specific knockout genes may not be useful for your current research, but you still want to keep the line, so you have to keep and cull them over and over. Do you have any idea how many animals are killed like this? If you don't like it go vegan.
    1
  30.  @edwardhosmer5726  Pretty sure the only experiment is how far conspiracy theorists like yourself will go to justify being selfish.
    1
  31.  @CSPORTPDX  Sure, in that the department did. FDA would have also given approval.
    1
  32.  @zero1zerolast393  "You do know the test were deem not needed right? As in, people thought there was no need to kill the dogs." Which tests? Can you drop a good source that supports this? "Also, rats are closer to us than dogs are." Not really. Depends on what you are testing for. Many facilities use dogs for renal studies. They are also required to justify what animals they use as a hierarchy. They had a reason to use dogs. "Again, what did we gain from this test?" Which one? The Tunisia study was about figuring out how parasites spread in the wild. The Georgia study was testing vaccines.
    1
  33.  @danielleon1781  "I get that this is a dumb double standard, but society does think this way." So you agree that it's a double standard and agree that it's dumb, but go along with it anyway because "society"???? "There are animals meant to be tested, and dogs are not one of those animals." Says you. People can be big babies about this, but at the end of the day sometimes they need to test on dogs. "like I just said, there are animals bred and meant to be eaten." They eat dogs in China so...
    1
  34.  @kylewyotee  "You literally have the same energy as those who say slaves were better off in slavery" I never said that lab animals are better off, although in that North Africa example they very may well be. I said that using animals for scientific research is necessary, regardless of your personal feelings.
    1
  35.  @aredrose527  Duh? They breed millions of beagles for experiments. What are you even trying to argue?
    1
  36.  @aredrose527  Arguing the morality of it is all well and good, but do you have an alternative to animal testing?
    1
  37.  @CSPORTPDX  "independent thought" Doubt
    1
  38.  @CSPORTPDX  You don't even think you own comments through, you just parrot whatever you've been told and react react react. Why do you think it takes you three comments to try and make a single point? So lets breakdown what you've actually attempted to say with some level of investigation beyond watching a video: "care to explain what I said that wasn't?" It is factually incorrect and taken right from websites that either don't understand the scientific process, or are willfully ignoring it, to push a political narrative. "Yea, you're so loaded up with independent thought you cant see any other way to perform scientific study without killing puppies." Like what? They were testing a lethal parasite. What other way could they test this? Also got to love that your "independent thought" consists of asking me for your answers. "there's no way you've even left your parents basement for the last year and a half" Who doesn't mind a good ad hominem from time to time. It just shows your argument is weak.
    1
  39.  @CSPORTPDX  Oh I'm sorry, are you avoiding the question while also asking me to wipe your arse for you? If you're having an issue with factual accuracy how about checking back your own claims. My personal favourite was: "I'm sure we have enough understanding of the human kidney to avoid animal testing" Not even close. Especially when it comes to how specific illnesses effect certain body parts. Then we have lying through inference like so: "i askk what came of these studies that had the beagles debarked and eaten by sandflies. how did that benefit us, or science.. what did they find?" When I responded with the actual reasoning behind the studies you didn't even respond and changed the subject, a common tactic. You know what you said is false now, and yet you keep parroting it. There was also your first gem: "theres a differnce between that and what fauci did" Nope. The studies were conducted with approval on the grounds that they literally had no choice but to use beagles if they wanted a good result, just like every other study that uses beagles. This was also a fun one: "so you are acknowledge Faucis grant authorization to the university of georgia?" It was NIH funded. But Fauci is neither the head of NIH, nor the decider of grant funds. I mean seriously, get a grip. While you're at it, any clue on how better to test lethal parasites and their effect on the body in an effort to cure those infected?
    1
  40.  @aredrose527  Considering a lot of the research they do is certain death, that's just not possible.
    1
  41.  @CSPORTPDX  "Fauci's agency" So NIH, which he isn't even in control of. And? "when I said difference I was referring to the fact you said renal research and the sand flies" Not really. Both are lethal.
    1
  42.  @aredrose527  The choice is researching or not researching. The latter ends up far worse in the long run.
    1
  43.  @CSPORTPDX  "fauci is the head of the niaid, which is a dept within the nih" Right, so not the entire agency, as I said. Was his signature on the approval for this grant? Was it only reviewed by him and nobody else? Or did a group of people come together and decide this was both ethical and necessary and approved it? "faucis wife is head of bioethics for the nih" Must be how they met. That's nice for them. Of course, you do realise that her position in bioethics is about the research of bioethics, not some internal approving position, right? She doesn't approve grants, she studies bioethics to learn what is and isn't ethical based on the research results. "all of a sudden a pathogen jumps species in a lab they funded" Nice to lace in an unproven claim while ignoring that the funding was to improve lab safety. This isn't the first Sars virus to come out of the region, and assuming that this one was specially made is at best a stab in the dark.
    1
  44.  @CSPORTPDX  I doubt it, and even if he where who cares? Again, they are researching deadly parasites. How else are they supposed to do it? They aren't doing a clinical trial, clinical trials are for FDA approval. How utterly stupid are you? They actually didn't release a letter saying that, and you believing they did is the how I know you get your news from all the wrong sources. Sources which continue to string idiots like you along. You're a patsy and it's so obvious it makes me sad for the state of our nation.
    1
  45. ​ @CSPORTPDX  "In what kind of bonkers universe do you claim that because they funded SAFETY and the virus ESCAPED" Again, this is a completely unproven theory. Show some evidence that this even happened. "dude I was being sarcastic about the clinical trials" So you were just pretending to be dumb. Wow, genius there dude. "they have been torturing monkeys there for decades with little to show for it" How do you know? Show me the monkeys, the testing, the papers. Show me what they did. "And again of course there are animal trials for infectious diseases." You literally just spent hours arguing against this. "insert weirdly homoerotic rant here" I mean seriously, you should talk to someone about fantasies like that rather than ranting online. Very unhealthy. "in all seriousness, how many boosters are YOU going to take" Depends. Currently boosters are for people with compromised immune systems who see much earlier vaccine waning. "think about how whacked out and destroyed your natural immunity will be after 6 or 7 of those shots" That's not how any of that works. Vaccines encourage your immune system, not suppress it. So you don't understand animal research, research funding, clinical trials, vaccines or the immune system, and now you're attacking the man who is literally the messenger for the entire government scientific community because you don't understand his job either. Truly disheartening really.
    1
  46.  @aredrose527  That's literally all of science my dude.
    1
  47.  @CSPORTPDX  "I'm going to use your point about the nih funding wuhan for safety as a reason to trust them, for years." Which again, is only relevant if you can prove that covid-19 was in fact caused by a lab leak, which you have failed to do. You're trying to formulate an argument using faulty suppositions and it just doesn't work. But sure, act like a big child that doesn't know how to form a coherent comment. Phones are capable of writing what I'm writing. You can write a longer comment without constantly writing new ones. And again, since you have now dodged this question several times for obvious reasons: What alternative is there to animal testing? Not that I expect an answer. You've been so thoroughly destroyed that you can't form a single argument any more, just a string of personal attacks.
    1
  48.  @CSPORTPDX  "I never said there was some alternative." Actually you challenged me with finding one. This admission is a big win for me though. "You again fail to see my point about trusting fauci at all." I fail to see it because it's irrelevant. He is not the only person in charge here. He is a messenger for a much bigger organisation. "And you want me to single handedly prove right now that it was a lab leak?" Your entire argument assumes this to be true, so yes. "All I can say is occams razor." You think that it's more likely there was a string of experiments and cover ups that caused this outbreak rather than a natural mutation, like the last few Sars viruses we have seen? How is that more simple? "And now these people want to vax the kids and slip up and say "we wont know the side effects until we start injecting them"" Not really a slip up. They did clinical trials, but the difference in population sizes is pretty enormous. Kind of hard to find a 1 in a million side effect when dealing with a few thousand doses. "people who approve questionable research on animals are now pushong vaccines on 5 year olds. And you honestly dont see the issue there." Nope. "Because you dont seem to understand what "busy" means... and no you cant write the same things as quickly or effectively, my phone makes tons if typos." Busy seems to mean incompetent. "Do you understand most of what you do is gaslighting?" Taking your own points to logical conclusions while showing blatant lies and suppositions is not gaslighting. Calling scientists making breakthroughs in an attempt to cure deadly parasites "puppy killers" is also not gaslighting, but it's a really terrible angle to approach this from. I don't think you know what gaslighting is though, it more seems to be something you don't grasp, but throw around in an effort to "win" yet again. It is however factually incorrect. "You're the metaphorical horse player you not only defends the cruelty of horse racing but also tells people they picked the wrong horses when they win and they just lucky." So now you're comparing scientific research to cure deadly diseases to....horse racing. False equivalencies are fun aren't they. The last part of your statement makes literally zero sense. It's more pointing out that overall people lose money while gambling, and even if you won this time, over the course of your entire horse betting career you will more than likely lose money. This also means that for you to win, others must lose, leading to your actions perpetuating the suffering of others. Even if you win, things still get worse for everyone but the track in the long run. So I suppose it's a pretty apt description of vaccines and the pandemic I suppose. Not getting vaxed is like betting on horses. I like that, I think I'll keep it. "You haven't destroyed anything I've said. You just respond in slightly of kilter ways while not quite understanding what I'm saying" I understand it, and clearly respond to it line by line. You asked me to find some alternative to animal testing, then admitted there isn't one. You blame Fauci for things while ignoring that there is an entire agency and dozens of massive professional organisations backing him and what he is saying. You claim a lab leak with no evidence, then try to use Occam's razor as some explanation, even though a lab leak is infinitely more complex than it naturally occurring, as it has done this dozens of times in the past. You take quotes out of context while ignoring that the quote about vaxing kids was made by a committee that approved the motion. You claim questionable research when you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to support that. You are a disgrace. "how many shots are you going to take?" Depends on how my immune system holds onto the current antibodies I have. I don't think mine will wane quite so quickly, but we'll see how I get on. Might go for an antibody test next month. So if you really need anything else spelled out to you as you seem to understand literally nothing, then I'll be happy to do so. If you come out with the same gutter tripe as before then I'm not going to bother. You will have shown yourself to be a lost cause unworthy of mine, or anyone else's time, aside from perhaps others who share your obvious religious levels of belief in blatant propaganda.
    1
  49.  @MKultraInstinct  You have a habit of threatening people online. Find away, I don't care.
    1
  50.  @aredrose527  Well sure, that's kind of the issue though. We have to do this kind of research but don't want to do it on people because it will kill them. How else are we supposed to research this stuff?
    1
  51.  @MKultraInstinct  Stick to funko pops kid.
    1
  52.  @MKultraInstinct  They absolutely do laugh from hell, because they're dead.
    1