That link doesn’t work.
Anyway, let’s say for the sake of argument that, at this present moment, there are more downsides than benefits to COVID boosters and these should no longer be recommended.
How does that justify stopping all research on mRNA vaccines, including on producing a universal vaccine against cancer?
Since they’re two completely independent government bodies (the Queensland government, and the United States government) in entirely separate countries (Australia, and the United States), and they deal with completely different situations (whether to preserve frozen patient samples taken from people vaccinated and unvaccinated against Covid, versus whether to stop funding all research into all mRNA vaccine technology), we don’t need a single overarching explanation for both decisions.
What the actual fork are you talking about, sir?
Please make some sense. Explain to me how you think these two entirely separate issues are related. Walk me through it step by step.
Hope it works this time
From what I can gather, the suspicion is that the Queensland decision was motivated by fears the data would show that serious adverse effects from the vaccines were common. Maybe that’s what @Giltil is driving at? 
Anyway, it still doesn’t justify defunding all research on mRNA vaccines. As usual, @Giltil has trouble maintaining a coherent position. He thinks RFK Jr stopping research is a good thing because mRNA vaccines are bad bad bad. But Queensland also stopping such research is a bad thing, but for the same reason. 
Nope.
If it’s good research, why not just post a normal link like one would for any other research?
I can’t access it either.
So in the Australian case, the data is not yet in and the research was halted simply out of fear that it might show this?
And RFK Jr has (unpublished) data showing that the Covid mRNA vaccines have shown all mRNA vaccine technology can never lead to anything good, so therefore the US government is stopping all government funding of all mRNA vaccine developments (covid or not)?
This is Gilberts overarching theory for these two different decisions?
I’m sorry but I can’t wrap my head around this utter lunacy.
Don’t worry. It makes perfect sense to @Giltil and the MAGA hordes. So all good.
There has been a study published on it:
As far as I can make out, funding for this biobank was halted in 2023 (under a left-wing ALP state government), and this year, the decision was made (under a right LNP state government) to destroy the biobank. Why this is evidence of a conspiracy, has yet to be explained.
I’m having a “discussion” with someone on my Facebook page over some MAGA quack who was very upset that people were showing elevated levels of “spike protein antibodies, years after getting the shots.” Even after the difference between a spike protein and a spike protein antibody was explained to him, he didn’t change his mind.
Multiply him by 77 million other US voters, and here we are….
I saw and couldn’t help participate. Ultra-loon.
Results: Of the 6797 eligible respondents (predominantly female [62%]; median age: 52 years), AEFIs were reported by 53.4%, 44.1%, 40.7%, and 40.9% following doses 1 to 4, respectively. Pain and tenderness were predominant local AEFIs, while tiredness and headaches were the most frequent systemic AEFIs, generally resolving within three days. Relatively few participants reporting AEFIs consulted medical professionals: 7.0%, 7.3%, 5.1%, and 1.9% following each dose, respectively. The mean healthcare cost per person reporting AEFIs was AUD 24, AUD 88, AUD 22, and AUD 4 following each respective dose. Work absenteeism was recorded in 16.5%, 18.2%, 15.2%, and 11.2% following each dose with mean absenteeism days per person of 4.7, 7.4, 3.6 and 2.1, respectively, and mean productivity costs per person reporting AEFIs amounting to AUD 1494, AUD 2388, AUD 1136, and AUD 690, respectively.
IMHO that doesn’t suggest the vaccine is lethal poison so much as that some Aussie workers will take any opportunity for a paid day off.
Oh my. I’ve dealt with that intransigence as well.
This is where I lose it. The man must know, when it has been explained to him, that he has misunderstood a term, and that antibodies are distinct from the antigens they bind to, and that the spike protein is an antigen that the antibody binds to.
I remember a time when I didn’t know these terms, came across them for the first time, and had to memorize each and not get them mixed up. Can you forget, or get them mixed up? Of course. Anyone can.
Now imagine that you’ve discovered this difference. You were mistaken, you got new information, you gained a new understanding. But then you double down because you’re a colossal moron who don’t like to admit you can be mistaken about something.
Here’s the problem: I can’t imagine doing that, and therefore when I encounter people who do that, I lose it and call them names. They’re idiots and I take pleasure in telling them. No, wait. That’s not entirely true. I alleviate my suffering at encountering such stupidity. It’s a balm against the pain I feel at encountering immovable retardation. It’s a cope. I cope with their idiocy by telling them. I vent my frustration at their stubborn stupidity by telling them of it. I am flawed in this way. There is no hope.
Clearly, you will never be appointed to the current administration’s cabinet.
Yes. You definitely will never get such an appointment.
Maybe this one works…
The study outcome was time to COVID-19, the latter defined as a positive NAAT result for SARS-CoV-2 any time after the study start date. Outcomes were followed up until 14 March 2023, allowing for evaluation of outcomes up to 26 weeks from the study start date.
See the problem?
Is there a reason you chose that one single study as opposed to, say, this larger and more recent one that focused on mortality, rather than on infection rates?
Estimated number of lives directly saved by COVID-19 vaccination programmes in the WHO European Region from December, 2020, to March, 2023: a retrospective surveillance study - The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
(LOL, just joking. Everyone knows why you cherry picked one study out of every other one.)
This is the most basic fact about the vaccine. To be ignorant of this fact is to be utterly unqualified to type anything on a discussion forum meant for the discussion of science.
Gill, your ignorance is so spectacular that you should sign off and read tiny, basic scientific facts of the kind we expect high schoolers to undrestand.
For @Giltil’s education:
How COVID-19 vaccines protect you
The COVID-19 vaccine stimulates your body’s immune system to make antibodies and fight the virus.
The vaccines help prevent you from:
- getting infected
- having COVID-19 symptoms
- severe illness.
This means you could have COVID-19 with no symptoms or will have fewer, milder symptoms and recover faster.
Being up to date with your immunisations means that you might still get infected with COVID-19. But it significantly reduces your chances of becoming seriously ill or ending up in hospital.
That’s adorable. In what world, pray tell, were political decisions ever in any way whatsoever rooted in science?
Politics is not a game of truth, it is a game of wealth and power; a game of thrones, if you will. Decisions are not made not in accord with what the evidence suggests is the case about human health. They are made in accord with what the evidence suggests is the case about political and financial support. What ever gets the decision makers the sweetest balance of voter devotion and lobbyist investment, that is what they’ll try and implement. Whether or how much these align with what’s best for the people or true about nature may at times be question of popular scientific literacy, which, unfortunately, is severely affected by decisions regarding the education system – hence this unenviable position the English-speaking West in general and the United States in particular is finding itself in lately. This idea, that government choices are all in their own right an indicator as to what is factual with regard to scientific questions is dangerously naive, and the idea that banning or destroying research is a way to improve anyone’s understanding of anything is outright absurd.