Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1341677)	2/8/2022 3:46:53 PM
From: Broken_Clock	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574674

he is correct. I've posted Osterholm om masks numerous times here. He's vaxxed, over 45 years as a virologist, on Biden Covid task force, founder of the acclaimed CIDRAP. cidrap.umn.edu "The data are clear that most cloth face coverings and surgical masks offer very limited source control (protection of others from pathogens by limiting emissions from an infected person) and personal protection against small inhalable infectious particles and should not be considered a replacement for other, more effective methods of reducing one's exposure to SARS-CoV-2, such as vaccination and good ventilation. We strongly support people wearing more effective facepieces, including respirators. Even if not fit-tested, an N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR)—or any other respirator—will offer better protection from COVID-19, if sized and worn correctly.2 As there is now ample supply, it is no longer important to reserve respirators for healthcare workers only." I've rarely seen N95's(I use it) and even more rarely see those N95's fitted to a person's face. "Better protection"...which is not clarified. FYI, the CIDRAP position hasn't changes in 2 years since the outbreak of Covid. Osterholm is on record stating he masks up because he's a "voice" and people expect it of him. He was quickly tired of being shamed.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1341677)	2/8/2022 6:26:26 PM
From: Winfastorlose	2 Recommendations Recommended By Mick Mørmøny tntpal Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574674

Pfizer Quietly Adds Language Warning That 'Unfavorable Pre-Clinical, Clinical Or Safety Data' May Impact Business TUESDAY, FEB 08, 2022 - 03:40 PM Two weeks ago, the FDA begged a Texas judge to delay production on the first monthly batch of 55,000 pages of Covid-19 vaccine data submitted to the agency by Pfizer. Originally, the agency was set to produce just 500 pages-per-month. [url=][/url] Now, *Pfizer - which just forecast $54 billion in Covid-related sales in 2022, appears to be anticipating some bad news,* as evidenced by several redline changes in their Q4 earnings releases. As Rubicon Capital's Kelly Brown notes on Twitter, the changes center around disclosures of unfavorable safety data. For example, in Q4 they added: "or further information regarding the quality of pre-clinical, clinical or safety data, including by audit or inspection." [url=][/url] More from Brown, who notes that Pfizer is now highlighting "concerns about clinical data integrity..." Pfizer added new and peculiar items deep in its business risk disclosures re: clinical trial data, today in its Q4 earnings. (1/3) "...risks associated with...further information regarding the quality of pre-clinical, clinical or safety data, including by audit or inspection;" pic.twitter.com/2GCjs0Bj3r — Kelly Brown (@rubiconcapital_) February 8, 2022 (3/3) New risk disclosure regarding Covid-19 itself: "...the possibility that COVID-19 will diminish in severity or prevalence, or disappear entirely;" pic.twitter.com/1nOK8fu8HQ — Kelly Brown (@rubiconcapital_) February 8, 2022