Hello FictionPimp, reposting. They are not my claims, they are written by epidemiologists at the U.S. National Institute of Health.

National Institute of Health
Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

Results of the study:

COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications:

The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.

Our authoritarian "leaders" in government, corporate (Microsoft, et. al.), and media have been oddly quiet about this science(!) from the U.S. National Institute of Health. It's becoming especially relevant given the recent rise in cases and hospitalizations for the vaccinated, the recent large Israeli COVID patient data set being but one example. Will these entities bear liability for mandating/forcing vaccines without corresponding full disclosure to meet informed consent requirements?

National Institute of Health
Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]

Results of the study:

COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications:

The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.

National Institute of Health
Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

Results of the study:

COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications:

The specific and significant COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.

Well, to start, your troll-esque personal attack "Also, stop saying "peer-reviewed" in every sentence, it make you sound like a nut." would hurt a lot if it wasn't coming from someone with the UID "fartbot".

Peer-reviewed data is important and relevant here because every other word out of the mouth of the people at CDC and US Government (trying to fear-monger this into political benefit for them) is "Science, Science, Science". (Peer reviewed information would also be important for evidence qualification in courtroom proceedings, when folks start suing to stop "mandatory inoculations".)

Okay, let's play grownup science - peer-review is the ultimate qualification for shared scientific information. (I never thought I would have to define 'peer review' on a Slashdot discussion board, and I'm not going to now.) It's even more relevant in yesterday's situation because one of the studies used by the CDC to support the LATEST flip flop on masking FAILED peer review. Are the CDC people clowns, or are they pathologically mendacious?

The link you share is a "report" from CNN, the bastion of objective journalism (ROTFLMFAO), on a "document" released by the CDC, which "says" the Delta variant has an R Transmission rate of 8, four times the rate of "infection" of the original COVID strain (four times the rate per the CDC, eight times the rate per UK NHS) AND "causes more severe infection". So I guess based on this alleged orders of magnitude higher transmission rate AND alleged "more severe infection", hospitalizations and deaths should be skyrocketing, but they are not, in fact they are decreasing. Peer review would have trained epidemiologists (who don't work for the CDC) looking at this report and asking for source data, then verifying and asking questions.

The seven questions I sent should be the STARTING point for authorities (and journalists, sigh) to use to help folks understand exactly and objectively what is happening, and to help US citizens make the best choices for them and their kids in terms of informed consent with respect to vaccination.

Actually, none of my seven basic questions require "years and decades" of comprehensive study. They can be answered with objective, peer-reviewed data that should have been being gathered and be available from the 1.5 years of the casedemic so far, and NONE of it is being shared or published by the CDC.

However, if folks start going to the courthouse over this, the CDC or US Government is going to have to answer these questions, but they should ALREADY BE DOING SO to meet their obligation to US citizen's ability to properly decide on informed consent. To quote the UK NHS data analyst, what is being done to people by this data not being shared "is despicable".

Thanks Chinese troll with 'Anonymous Coward' UID. In your own primitive way, you did well - you will get an extra bun for dinner.

If ANYONE, troll or not, can find peer-reviewed data to answer my questions, let me know! The lower the Slashdot UID of the responder, the more likely I'll be to consider the response credible.

So the President said in yesterday's press conference he is having the US Justice Department "look into" the legality of the US Government mandating forced injections into citizens bodies. Hey US Justice Department, to meet the legal and moral requirements of informed consent for those considering taking COVID-19 vaccination injections:

1) Where is the peer-reviewed data documenting the R Transmission rate of COVID-19, with comparable R Transmission rate data for the Delta variant? For reference, the R Transmission rate for measles is approximately 15, as in, one person testing positive for measles will transmit measles to 15 other people on average. The UK NHS recently ESTIMATED the R Transmission rate for COVID-19 is 0.6 - 0.8 (less than one). If peer-reviewed R Transmission data for COVID-19 and variants is not available, why not?

2) What is the size of COVID virus particles when expirated from humans?

3) What is the size of the apertures in the cloth/covering in generic, non N95 masks generally worn by U.S. consumers?

4) Where is the peer-reviewed seroprevalence survey data indicating how many U.S. citizens are COVID-19 antibody or T-cell positive, after 1.5 years (minimum) of spread of what is an alleged highly-transmissible, in the wild COVID-19 virus? If seroprevalence surveying is not being done, why not?

5) Where is the peer-reviewed data showing cases/hospitalizations/deaths for COVID-19 and variants including Delta, for both vaccinated AND unvaccinated patients, in monthly time series format for the past 18 months to the present? If this comprehensive peer-reviewed data is not available, why not?

6) As the CDC VAERS database is populated with voluntary submissions and cannot be deemed either objective or comprehensive, where is the definitive, peer-reviewed data showing trends in adverse reactions and deaths to the "non sterilized immunity" COVID-19 vaccines? If this trend data is not available, why not?

7) Where is the published (by the medical professional community) outpatient therapeutic standard of care for diagnosed COVID-positive patients? If there is not a published outpatient therapeutic standard of care, why not?

If you want more folks to take the vaccine, meet this MINIMUM level of transparency in terms of objective, peer-reviewed data (Science!). If not, GFY. If you want to mandate vaccines, directly via the executive branch of the government bypassing legislative debate and lawmaking, or indirectly through public accommodations restrictions or job restrictions/loss, get ready to answer these questions at the courthouse, up to and including the federal appeals courts level and SCOTUS. Ethical political leaders, you'd better find your spines with respect to getting answers to these questions, before it is too late.

In addition to the obfuscation by the CDC on mask effectiveness data, where is the objective, peer-reviewed data needed to meet the legal and moral requirements for informed consent for those considering taking COVID-19 vaccination injections?

1) Where is the peer-reviewed data documenting the R Transmission rate of COVID-19, with comparable R Transmission rate data for the Delta variant? For reference, the R Transmission rate for measles is approximately 15, as in, one person testing positive for measles will transmit measles to 15 other people on average. The UK NHS recently ESTIMATED the R Transmission rate for COVID-19 is 0.6 - 0.8 (less than one). If peer-reviewed R Transmission data for COVID-19 and variants is not available, why not?

2) What is the size of COVID virus particles when expirated from humans?

3) What is the size of the apertures in the cloth/covering in generic, non N95 masks generally worn by U.S. consumers?

4) Where is the peer-reviewed seroprevalence survey data indicating how many U.S. citizens are COVID-19 antibody or T-cell positive, after 1.5 years (minimum) of spread of what is an alleged highly-transmissible, in the wild COVID-19 virus? If seroprevalence surveying is not being done, why not?

5) Where is the peer-reviewed data showing cases/hospitalizations/deaths for COVID-19 and variants including Delta, for both vaccinated AND unvaccinated patients, in monthly time series format for the past 18 months to the present? If this comprehensive peer-reviewed data is not available, why not?

6) As the CDC VAERS database is populated with voluntary submissions and cannot be deemed either objective or comprehensive, where is the definitive, peer-reviewed data showing trends in adverse reactions and deaths to the "non sterilized immunity" COVID-19 vaccines? If this trend data is not available, why not?

7) Where is the published (by the medical professional community) outpatient therapeutic standard of care for diagnosed COVID-positive patients? If there is not a published outpatient therapeutic standard of care, why not?

If you want more folks to take the vaccine, meet this MINIMUM level of transparency in terms of objective, peer-reviewed data. If not, GFY. If you want to mandate vaccines, directly via the executive branch of the government bypassing legislative debate and lawmaking, or indirectly through public accommodations restrictions or job restrictions/loss, get ready to answer these questions at the courthouse, up to and including the federal appeals courts level and SCOTUS. Ethical political leaders, you'd better find your spines with respect to getting answers to these questions, before it is too late.

1) Where is the peer-reviewed data documenting the R Transmission rate of COVID-19, with comparable R Transmission rate data for the Delta variant? For reference, the R Transmission rate for measles is approximately 15, as in, one person testing positive for measles will transmit measles to 15 other people on average. The UK NHS recently ESTIMATED the R Transmission rate for COVID-19 is 0.6 - 0.8 (less than one). If this peer-reviewed R Transmission data is not available, why not?

2) Where is the peer-reviewed seroprevalence survey data indicating how many U.S. citizens are COVID-19 antibody or T-cell positive, after 1.5 years (minimum) of spread of what is an alleged highly-transmissible COVID-19 virus in the wild? If seroprevalence surveying is not being done, why not?

3) What is the size of COVID virus particles when expirated from humans?

4) What is the size of the apertures in the cloth/covering in generic, non N95 masks generally worn by U.S. consumers?

5) Where is the peer-reviewed data showing cases/hospitalizations/deaths for COVID-19 and variants including Delta, for both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, in monthly time series format for the past 18 months to the present? If this comprehensive peer-reviewed data is not available, why not?

6) As the CDC VAERS database is populated with voluntary submissions and cannot be deemed either objective or comprehensive, where is the definitive, peer-reviewed data showing trends in adverse reactions and deaths to the "non sterilizing immunity" COVID-19 vaccines? If this trend data is not available, why not?

7) Where is the published (by the medical professional community) outpatient therapeutic standard of care for diagnosed COVID-positive patients? If there is not one, why not?

If you want more folks to take the vaccine, meet this minimum level of transparency in terms of objective data. If not, GFY. If you want to mandate vaccines, directly via the government without legislative action, or indirectly through public accommodations restrictions or job restrictions/loss, get ready to answer these questions at the courthouse, up to and including the federal appeals courts level and SCOTUS. Ethical political leaders, you'd better find your spines with respect to getting answers to these questions, before it is too late.

Would Goldman Sachs be able to require that employees "disclose in an internal portal" whether the employee had HIV, or not?

Amazon uses an inventory storage procedure known as 'random stow.' To summarize at a high level, random stow saves resources when stocking Amazon's many DCs which have decentralized inventory frameworks, DCs located around the world in which Amazon has invested billions of cap ex. A phone/PDA with picking software is given to each human, to guide them to each inventory picking job in the DC in the most optimized way. With random stow, which went against the industry orthodoxy when it was rolled out, NO ONE has better-designed and efficient pick/pack/ship retail warehouse processes than Amazon, even in its current human-staffed state. Long ago, they figured out in addition to random stow, in general they did not want picking shelves which required employees to climb ladders. They spent extra cap ex for more low, flat DCs, but saved huge amounts in operating costs afterward. So they are well-positioned for Kiva robots to be integrated into the pick/pack/ship process, and they will no doubt lead the industry here as well. The human costs past/present/and future are not part of the calculus, nor a particular issue for them.

Hi Ciaran, Great work on the video, it should really help. My only concern is that nowhere in the video is it indicated that if software patents are eliminated, software will still have very strong IP protection via copyright law, even in terms of derivative works.

As I mentioned downstream in a different post, software is not a physical invention, and can be copyrighted, just like music. And both are fully protected in the courts via copyright. That is why Microsoft has not been able to take a copy of Linux (which has no patent protection), slap a GUI on it, and call it their new "multibillion dollar investment in innovation." Copyright law, which the GPL license is based on, prevents even a company as powerful as Microsoft from stealing software, as much as they might want to. So copyright is very powerful protection for IP investment, and includes provisions for close copying in the form of derivatives works laws.

jwwjr

GiMP wrote "What if you built a better mousetrap and began marketing it, but before you had the time to take it off the ground, a large national manufacturer began selling copies of your design? This wouldn't be protected under copyright, but would be covered under patents."

This is a logical fallacy. A physical invention (mouse trap) cannot be copyrighted. Software is not a physical invention, and can be copyrighted, just like music. And both are fully protected in the courts via copyright. That is why Microsoft has not been able to take a copy of Linux (which has no patent protection), slap a GUI on it, and call it their new "multibillion dollar investment in innovation." Copyright law, which the GPL license is based on, prevents even a company as powerful as Microsoft from stealing software. So copyright is very powerful protection for REAL innovation. jwwjr