"This week Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discoveries that led to the development of mRNA vaccines used against COVID-19. Moderna and Pfizer‐BioNTech produced those vaccines, saving millions of lives and helping to reopen the world. According to the Nobel Assembly, the awardees “contributed to the unprecedented rate of vaccine development during one of the greatest threats to human health in modern times.”
"[Writing] in December of 2020 just as the vaccines were about to come online[, t]he COVID vaccines, Scott Lincicome rightly pointed out, were a triumph of globalisation.
"The much‐deserved Nobel Prize to Karikó and Weissman highlights that truth.
"It was the flow of people, ideas, capital, goods and services that made it possible to discover and produce a vaccine in record time…
"First, [this is a story] about immigrants. Karikó is Hungarian and went to work in Philadelphia ... Moderna’s co‐founder and chairman of the board, meanwhile, is of Armenian descent, born in Lebanon and immigrated first to Canada and then to the United States. The company’s other executives, like those at Pfizer, hail from numerous countries.
"Global capital markets also played a role by providing the massive funding needed ... The production and distribution of the vaccine required complex international collaboration in terms of logistics, shipping, storage, and supply chains ...
"None of the above could have been accomplished by a preconceived government plan. The production and distribution of the vaccines really were a triumph of globalisation."~ Ian Vásquez from his post 'A Nobel Prize for Globalisation'
UPDATE 1: Ian's original post flushed out more opponents of globalisation, and gives greater definition to what it is opponents means when they use the term. Here, for example, is a US Republican Congressman showing his ignorance:
Other responses are similarly revealing, i.e., confused, about what this term "globalisation" actually stands for in their heads:
It looks increasingly that for most people it's simply a floating label, defined by non-essentials. So instead of arguing about essentials, people end up arguing instead about what the label means to them.
Which is hardly the ideal basis either for communication, or clear thought.
UPDATE 2: To just add to the confusion, after Saturday's election ...
7 comments:
Yes, in record time. A wonderfully conceived experiment for the Human race. Do these people even know for certain, what is the mechanism or trigger in the "vaccine" that is causing myocarditis & pericarditis, particularly in young men?
Indeed. And similarly, did the Wright Brothers, or even today Boeing and Airbus know for certain what the mechanism is for their so called “flying machines” to sometimes crash to the ground?
MarkT
The Wrights took a risk which was personal in nature. They knew what it was and accepted it. The danger was to themselves. They did not impose risk or cost or penalty on tens or even hundreds of millions of others.
Boeing personnel, with the 787 MAX 8, took risks with OTHER people's lives. They knew better than to do this but went ahead anyway. The failure mode was already known, but they didn't care (they do now- way too late!). The significantly increased danger of getting killed by flying in the MAX was a burden imposed on unknowing passengers. Worse yet, the flight crews were not informed of the hugely increased risks of the MAX. In fact, the company actively disguised the risk and withheld critical information from the flight crews, airline management, FAA, aircraft maintenance personnel and everyone who flew in them. Boeing imposed risk, cost and penalty on thousands of others. They did it knowingly.
There is a difference between what Boeing did and what the Wrights did.
Nigel asked you a question which you failed to address.
I was going to reply to Mark's analogy but Anonymous has already addressed some of it with more detail than I was aware of.
Fully agree about the Wrights.
I can add that decades ago my Father was booking a plane trip for my late mother & upon being told that it would be on a Boeing, he insisted that it be changed immediately to British Airways, such was the appalling reputation of Boeing - even then.
Another point is this: at least when a Plane crashes, all the other models are grounded until a completely thorough investigation is completed.
If Mark means by his remark that there is always inherent risk in life and we must move on with the information we do have in the present, then why are the people who took the risk NOT to have the jab so vilified and slandered as "unhygienic" (this very blog) and rivers of filth?
My original question still stands.
Mark, didn't you reveal in a previous post that your own boys are not having the safe and effective boosters?
Nigel & Anon - I'm not going to answer your loaded questions, nor encourage you to hijack this thread further. Instead, I suggest you respond in good faith to the broader questions posed by Peter's original post.
I think it's obvious, and you wouldn't doubt either that without globalisation the vaccines probably wouldn't have happened, and they certainly wouldn't have been used throughout the world to the extent they were. Therefore:
1. Do you agree that the vaccines were a triumph of globalisation?
2. If not, does that make globalisation a bad thing in your eyes?
3. If globalisation is a bad thing (which you presumably must, as it was the enabler of the thing you obsessively berate), explain why?
Mark, it's hard to understand how I've hijacked the thread when no one else posted before me and the only other poster besides us, actually supported me.
I already stated the "vaccines" (ie: the novel mRNA gene therapy rollout, let's call it what it is) were a wonderfully conceived experiment for the Human race, delivered in record time.
Obviously due to Globalisation.
That was my honest response.
I'd refer you and Peter (and anyone else reading) back again to the last post on the "Forced" discussion thread by Monica, the Biology Professor. She is someone who can speak with some authority on this subject and it's a shame she posted so late in the discussion as what she said deserved far more attention than it probably got.
It's your questions that are loaded, Mark, because however I answer I'll be painted as an anti- Globalist.
But I'll answer the first one, even though you won't do me the same curtesy.
Yes, a triumph.
But whether that's a good or bad thing depends on context.
If it means Corporations dictating terms to sovereign governments or induced spike protein floating around the bloodstream and replicating for months, perhaps not.
Thought I might add this late to the thread, since it's from Vaclav Klaus
He also suggested that we make a distinction between “globalization”—that is, liberalized trade that generally benefits everyone—and “globalism,” the ideology that sees trade flows and overseas investment as something to be politically managed by the multinational elites such as the World Economic Forum. Klaus prefers to say “internationalization” rather than globalization as a way of avoiding the pernicious conflation.
Post a Comment