Eric Trump Says Nonexistent COVID-19 Vaccine His Dad 'Took' Worked Really 'Well'

Drop the "bright bulb" comment. You are saying it sarcastically which is a personal attack. FYI, personal attacks are not allowed here. FYI, it's within the rules for *me* to sarcastically doubt that Eric Trumper is a "bright bulb" because he is a public figure that is part of the political world and we discuss Politics here (have you noticed how many people here have called Biden demented and dumb? Same thing). But it is not OK for *you* to call *me* the same way since we are both members here. Get it?

And no. That's not the intention of my OP. I'm a private person. Eric is a political operative. When he lies, misleads, and obfuscates, it's almost certainly (unless he indeed is a moron) that he does it with a political agenda. Did you notice his OTHER lie, that Trump "created" these vaccines??? So, no, I'm not calling him out on what he is saying in "his OP" (strange analogy; that was an interview) and telling him what to say... I'm calling him out because he is LYING. Big difference. For one, *I'm* not lying.

Look, I don't know if I can expect an understanding of all the nuances from Eric Trump, but I certainly apparently can't expect the same from you because unlike what you just said in all letters, they DON'T DO THE SAME THING!!! Gee! There are many striking differences between a vaccine and a monoclonal or polyclonal antibody cocktail; one of the notable ones (among others) is that the antibody cocktails are short-acting and do NOT "stimulate" ANYTHING in the recipient's bodies, do not trigger the T and B cell systems, and do not codify for future production of antibodies, unlike a vaccine. They do NOT "produce immunity." They are a TREATMENT for those already infected, and a person receiving a dose of Regeneron's polyclonal antibodies DOESN'T become immune to Covid-19. So before you sarcastically call me "bright bulb" you have an interest in understanding these things a bit better.

A good place to start is my own thread "The State of the Vaccines" pinned by the moderators to the top of the Coronavirus Pandemic Discussions, where among MANY other details, I explain at some point the mechanism of action of vaccines and how they trigger the immunological cascade (and how the different platforms do it). You'll be able to learn A LOT there, guess from whom? From me. A professional in this area. The one you are sarcastically calling "bright bulb". You can ask questions if you will and I'll be glad to explain, like I've been doing for anybody who has questions about it, in that long thread (and being thanked by many for my clarifications).

I'm glad that you seem to at least be able, now, to look up some of the differences, but obviously you haven't fully understood the issue, yet, since you issued this HUGE blunder of supposing that these two antiviral strategies "do the same thing." LOL

It's always entertaining when someone berates someone else for supposedly not being intelligent (your sarcastic and repeated "bright bulb" comment) and then proceeds to posting a HUGE blunder. LOL.

 

Again, this part has been explained. I'm perfectly entitled to criticize a political figure. You are not allowed to criticize me in a personal way. And I'm berating Eric Trump for lying, likely with a political agenda.

 

Always a pleasure to dialogue with you, my friend. I would like to clarify that my doubt regarding using the mRNA vaccines as a therapy for an active SARS-CoV-2 infection has to do with the timeline. As you know, the timeline for rabies is favorable to this method given the very slow incubation period unless someone is bitten in areas of the body closer to the brain than the extremities. But Covid-19 tends to be much faster, so given that we're talking primary response, it will take several days for a vaccine to result in antibody production and by then it will likely be too late. I'm not denying that therapeutic uses may be developed. I'm just saying, we're not there yet, and I believe you'll agree with me on this.

Look, it's always the issue of simplification versus details that may be hardly accessible to lay people. You and I can talk while paying attention to details and nuances... but most people won't be there, and will get frustrated. So, in simple terms, it is true that Trump was given therapies, not a preventative vaccine, and it is also true that not even preventative covid-19 vaccines can be delivered to the population outside of clinical trials yet, let alone a therapeutic one, that at this point does not exist.

So, Eric saying that his father "created" a vaccine and "took it" is a double lie.

Oh, and by the way, Trump lied about Regeneron's treatment too. He said he would send it free of charge to any person in need of it, when there were only ten people so far who have been given this experimental treatment and it is extremely expensive and out of reach. So obviously, no, Trump will NOT be sending it to "anybody who needs it" given the hundreds of thousands of people who yes, do need it... But it's a convenient thing for Trump to say 3 weeks before the election, although he'll never deliver on this promise (it reminds me of the Southern border wall that he'd make the Mexican government pay).

 

What's wrong with the last drop?

 

@557 by the way the therapeutic potential of mRNA vaccines is a fascinating topic. At some other point I'd like to continue the discussion of it with you.

If there is one silver lining to this horrible pandemic, is that research on this has been progressing by leaps and bounds and will probably do some good down the line, for other diseases like cancer.

As of now I'm about to start watching the NFL on TV, so, I'll be putting it aside for now. Cheers.

 

I think you don't like that in the language of the unwashed Trump got bleached, with clones, like he questioned the possibility of.

Yes, the we are allowed to dim bulb Eric, but brightening another and is a wrong argument to be assumed E.V.I.L.

Who, what, when... The journalist should have asked again, to please you, but apparently he was satisfied with Eric's switching to repeating "medicine" rattles.

 

Uh, the, uh, "?," question mark has a purpose. Go back and look.

 

Sorry, your defense fell flat. You obviously did think that these two antiviral strategies do the same thing. Who do you think you're fooling? Your statement was that they do the same thing, so how would Eric Trump know the difference INTERROGATION MARK? Your interrogation mark WASN'T you questioning if they do the same thing or not. You assumed they do. WRONG. You don't know anything about this issue, obviously. By assuming that they do, you questioned how Eric would know.

Oh boy, what a failure.

Here is a piece of advice: quit while you're behind. Because if you continue this, you'll fall further behind.

 

To add more clarification because some journalist will assume a phrase means one thing and will not follow up. Do the same thing, to not die...

How that is accomplished is too complicated, no matter the pill, just want results, is it fixed, can I go home...

 

Because he doesn't know the difference between a vaccine and an antibody. Simple as that. This is scary, a whole family of dotards and they make decisions on public health policy.

 

Too bad the CEO of Regeneron has stated that the treatment Trump got is a "one off"

 

You might want to go ahead and re-read the title of the thread.

 

No, I quoted two separate sites and quotes that said they didn't do the same thing, and the definition of a vaccine, which the clone is not. Do the same thing, is the goal, the goal is to live.

 

Yes, like I said, only 10 people got it so far. 9 of them as part of the company studying the product, and... Trump. And he's saying he'll give it free of charge to anybody who needs it (that is, thousands and thousands of Americans, who, no, won't be getting this treatment regardless of Trumps empty promises (Mexican will pay for the wall).

 

That is actually the best case scenario. The worst one is that they are employing "alternative facts" and trying to convince low-information voters that there is a vaccine being used already outside of trials and Trump got it, therefore there is nothing to fear, regarding this virus.

The message is consistent with everything else they've been saying and doing, so I frankly doubt that it's "just" Eric being a dotard.

 

I've seen too many horror movies about cloning to want that. Rather be all natural, well, uh, vaccine.

 

Not when going on nat'l tv and know the questions before hand. Most everyone who gets interviewed and agrees to said interview is intelligent enough to answer correctly.

 

White Horse Souse, that's all I have to say to that. Probably should add potatoe and the clip of Obama saying he would protect Iran from attack when he meant Israel.

 

Hm.. the "clone"??? Do you actually know what polyclonal antibodies are???

Sorry. Beat around the bush as much as you want. Yes, NOW that I told you, you're understanding a bit better how different they are... but YOU did say that they are "in there to do the same thing." Your words. Sorry, buddy, you don't get to take your words back. You did utter them. And it's not the BROADEST of reasonings, "the goal is to live" that will save you from the FACT that you uttered a grossly incorrect statement (while belittling my intelligence).

Now, basically you're saying "vaccine, antibodies, whatever, they are all to try and get the patient to live, so Eric is basically right in calling a therapeutic, the same as a preventative vaccine." Uh, no. It isn't the same. A vaccine can be distributed to hundreds of millions and can increase populational immunity to the point of reaching herd immunity threshold and stopping the contagion, with the R naught number falling below one, and the epidemic getting extinguished. Antibody therapy can save *a few* already infected people if they are privileged enough to get it, and does NOTHING to decrease the contagion for the bulk of the population.

So, no, calling an antibody cocktail a vaccine, is not only scientifically incorrect (I'd know, I've been doing this for a living for 40 years), but is also politically misleading, that is, a lie.

So, by arguing that it's basically the same thing because we want the patient to live, you ignore the political part of it, the fact that Trump has been promising a vaccine before the election, and he is running out of time (it's not going to happen, the election is 3 weeks away), and then his son implies that the treatment he got IS A VACCINE!!! It couldn't be more transparent.

You know what you should say? It's not required, I don't need it, and I'm not trying to dictate to you what you should say (unlike what you tried to do to me, in an adversarial way), but it's just friendly advice:

"Oops, I'm sorry, my bad, I guess I got into the personal attack mode which is not civil and violates the rules of this forum, and I'm sorry that I questioned your intelligence, while committing a mistake myself. Can we reset and restart the discussion of the topic itself without personal attacks and with civility?"

To which I'd say "Absolutely, buddy. Everybody makes mistakes [even Eric Trump but in his case I suspect a political agenda). Actually I do think that you are an intelligent poster and we've discussed other topics, and we've actually agreed on some of them. I have nothing against you. Apology accepted. Peace, brother."

Somehow I kind of doubt that you'd adopt this positive attitude, but hey, it *is* a piece of friendly advice. That's what cancels a blunder; acknowledging one's mistake, apologizing, and moving on. Beating around the bush and trying to get around it without acknowledging it, is not it.

Your choice. The ball is on your camp.

 

See, even if Eric said five more times he didn't mean vaccine, it would not matter. I have a row of pills that do the same thing, keep me alive.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyclonal_antibodies

 

Yea...let's base medical decisions based on movies.

Sure

 

All our therapeutics for C19 depend on that same timeline to a large degree. The presentation of antigen can peak in 4 hours. It’s presence immediately facilitates T cell production/regulation. I don’t think the timing is any more difficult than remdesivir. I’m not advocating for therapeutic use of today’s vaccines. Just pointing out vaccines in development certainly have therapeutic properties inherent to their design.

That or he just isn’t interested in the detail or nuance of the differences. From the chopped up clip it looks to me like he’s too ignorant to intelligently discuss the issue. Look at all the “intellectuals” here that don’t know the difference between treatments/vaccines etc. If you (Eric) are that ignorant I’m not sure you could formulate a lie on the subject. Could be though.

I know hearing political types talk about your area of expertise is painful. This makes my brain hurt as much as Eric does yours with his ignorance.

 

Have the Doc explain exactly what a monoclonal thingy is, it's still going to remind me of some tiny alien in a tiny pod.

 

All right. I gave you an opportunity. You answer by... quoting a Wikipedia article!!!

Dear, I can WRITE those articles... and mine go to scientific journals and textbooks, not to Wikipedia.

But that's it. You had all the opportunities to say, "oops, my bad to sarcastically address you repeatedly as "bright bulb", and oops, I did make mistakes in my argumentation, my apologies, and let's reset."

Like I said, I didn't expect that you'd have this kind of integrity. Now it's confirmed.

That's where I draw the line. You don't want to budge. Great, good for you. But from my end, I have ZERO interest in interacting with this kind of person. My mistake, that at one point I engaged with you in productive discussions. Now I'm realizing that you don't deserve my time and attention. Your loss, because you could have learned a lot.

Welcome to my Ignore list. Over and out. Have a nice life.

 

The movie that actually applies, is "Idiocracy."
When I saw it, I thought of it as an obviously fictional and outrageous over-the-top comedy that would never materialize.
At the time I wouldn't believe that our country would actually turn into an idiocracy. Oh boy, I was mistaken. I underestimated the ability of stupid people to become dominant.
Sad.