toyot posted:spent too many years in pharma writing CCRs and CAPAs to the FDA to ever get a non-cGMP, non-approved vaccine. not a very popular opinion, but i'm sure every marxist here's earned the vigor of their arguments. i was API engineer on two cGMP plants, and participated in an emergency team where cGMP was effectively suspended during engineering runs for a new drug. i have a good sense of the range of ways to run a plant, know the regulations pretty well, so i know what was sacrificed rushing these out for national prestige, and i'm not putting it in my body. fun fact, it was the same plant that, pre-cGMP, infected 200000 people with live polio in a way preventable by the exact regulations suspended for these vaxes. so i'll wait for approval like i do every other drug. good luck with your life decisions everyone.
this is really irresponsible. i don't care if you ran that plant all by yourself, your past experience in the industry provides you with no factual insight into how these vaccines are being produced. but you're implying you have good reason to know better than to get vaccinated and you're being smug about it to boot. "good luck with your life decisions"? that says a lot about how much the wellbeing of the collective plays into your decision-making. pull your fucking head in.
Flying_horse_in_saudi_arabia posted:your past experience in the industry provides you with no factual insight
this kind of anti-materialist approach is only going to degrade conversation further toward bad-faith and hostile moralizing. let's not do this here.
if any posters want to flame eachother, please do so by clicking the 'reply to X's homepage' so we avoid clogging up this particular thread.
i dont have all that much else to add but please mark me down on the "vaccine is actually good" side please tia
toyot posted:the vaccines passed the equivalent of a phase 1 trial. 90% of drugs that pass phase 1 go on to fail in later phases. given the 10% odds, a vaccine mandate would be consistent with whitey's well-known disregard for human life.
thats a pretty gross misrepresentation. a phase 1 trial is done to prove things like short term safety like tolerability,side effects in healthy humans, measuring human absorption distribution metabolism elimination. at the point of a phase 1 trial efficacy does not even come into play. usually the amount of human volunteers at this stage is a few dozen up to 100. this is fairly simply and can be done in a matter of months. I've participated as a volunteer in once of those, it's pretty cool. phase 2 has a slightly higher but still modest scale (up to a few 100 volunteers usually) but also quantifies efficacy in ill patients, depending on the disease targeted this can take months (if the outcome metric is simple and measurable like "amount of infections after x weeks") or years (e.g. for AD). Phase 3 will usually take a long time (but also depends on the outcome metric), is supposed to also capture some long term effects and rarer side effects and will tend to have ten thousands of patients. At the moment the mRNA vaccines got approved for emergency usage, the amount of people enrolled in trials that reached their endpoints was very large, 43K people for pfizer-biontech for example. Though the process was clearly accelerated due to pandemic urgency, the most cynical possible reading is that the vaccines are in the middle of a promising phase 3 trial, and the current situation is to me more comparable to something like an extremely large phase 4 trial. About 1/4 of drugs starting phase III get market approval. What is the reason 3/4 of drugs in phase 3 fail at that stage? Usually efficacy, which, against wild type sars cov 2 is uncontroversially established as solid. Another common reason is side effects and toxicity that cannot be captured on smaller scale, so typically either rare ones or longer term ones. Rare side effects are currently well quantified by post emergency approval monitoring, they are no problem (compared to the baseline of catching covid unvaccinated or at a higher rate otherwise), long term side effects of course can only be detected long term, but considering the well documented reports of 1-10% of covid sufferers suffering from lingering postviral disease that manifest as chronic fatigue, measurable organ damage etc it is fair to say the outlook also looks good.
This is one thing, another thing you mentioned in your original remark is that you do not want to take non-cGMP vaccines, then pointing to catastrophic failures where live virus was distributed. However, you know the approved vaccines in amerika are mRNA vaccines, i.e. just a modified spike sequence and some delivery vehicle, no virus or full virus sequence involved. This significantly alters the spectrum of things that can go wrong when cGMP like standards are grossly ignored. Though as you say cGMP exists for a very good reason, the weigh off between possible risks (in this case either toxicity resulting from bad manufacturing or reduction of efficacy by degradation of the formulation) and curbing the epidemic to an extent in an acute emergency situation is quite easy to make. As the reported vaccine safety and efficacy data on the population level is on the real manufactured product as it is administered to humans, the current reports of real-life efficacy and tolerable safety profiles (compared to covid) on the short term also already eliminates some of these fears by now, hundreds of millions have taken these and it's no problem on a half year term and again these are not deactivated viruses they are just spike sequences so comparing with botched vaccination campaigns that included live virus are inappropriate.
Finally, if you want to appeal to authority because you did some work as an engineer in a plant, how much people working in vaccine development are refusing these vaccines? How much people at the pfizer plant in puurs are refusing vaccines? What do you think the vaccination rate is of people who are professionally involved in clinical trials, QC of vaccines, etc? What do you think my former classmates and coworkers that now work in process chemistry or clinical research would say if I told them I'm waiting for a non emergency approved cGMP certified vaccine to take in a few years?
Gssh posted:Flying_horse_in_saudi_arabia posted:your past experience in the industry provides you with no factual insight
this kind of anti-materialist approach is only going to degrade conversation further toward bad-faith and hostile moralizing. let's not do this here.
sorry but i'm not going to accept you smearing my objectively correct post as "anti-materialist" and "bad faith" by misquoting me. i said "your past experience in the industry provides you with no factual insight into how these vaccines are being produced". i don't care if my anger offends your anti-science superstitions but you're not going to get away with trying to tone-police me out of a discourse upon which countless lives depend.
toyot posted:lenochodek posted:toyot posted:
the vaccines passed the equivalent of a phase 1 trial. 90% of drugs that pass phase 1 go on to fail in later phases. given the 10% odds, a vaccine mandate would be consistent with whitey's well-known disregard for human life.
thats a pretty gross misrepresentation. a phase 1 trial is done to prove things like short term safety like tolerability,side effects in healthy humans, measuring human absorption distribution metabolism elimination. at the point of a phase 1 trial efficacy does not even come into play. usually the amount of human volunteers at this stage is a few dozen up to 100. this is fairly simply and can be done in a matter of months. I've participated as a volunteer in once of those, it's pretty cool. phase 2 has a slightly higher but still modest scale (up to a few 100 volunteers usually) but also quantifies efficacy in ill patients, depending on the disease targeted this can take months (if the outcome metric is simple and measurable like "amount of infections after x weeks") or years (e.g. for AD). Phase 3 will usually take a long time (but also depends on the outcome metric), is supposed to also capture some long term effects and rarer side effects and will tend to have ten thousands of patients. At the moment the mRNA vaccines got approved for emergency usage, the amount of people enrolled in trials that reached their endpoints was very large, 43K people for pfizer-biontech for example. Though the process was clearly accelerated due to pandemic urgency, the most cynical possible reading is that the vaccines are in the middle of a promising phase 3 trial, and the current situation is to me more comparable to something like an extremely large phase 4 trial. About 1/4 of drugs starting phase III get market approval. What is the reason 3/4 of drugs in phase 3 fail at that stage? Usually efficacy, which, against wild type sars cov 2 is uncontroversially established as solid. Another common reason is side effects and toxicity that cannot be captured on smaller scale, so typically either rare ones or longer term ones. Rare side effects are currently well quantified by post emergency approval monitoring, they are no problem (compared to the baseline of catching covid unvaccinated or at a higher rate otherwise), long term side effects of course can only be detected long term, but considering the well documented reports of 1-10% of covid sufferers suffering from lingering postviral disease that manifest as chronic fatigue, measurable organ damage etc it is fair to say the outlook also looks good.
This is one thing, another thing you mentioned in your original remark is that you do not want to take non-cGMP vaccines, then pointing to catastrophic failures where live virus was distributed. However, you know the approved vaccines in amerika are mRNA vaccines, i.e. just a modified spike sequence and some delivery vehicle, no virus or full virus sequence involved. This significantly alters the spectrum of things that can go wrong when cGMP like standards are grossly ignored. Though as you say cGMP exists for a very good reason, the weigh off between possible risks (in this case either toxicity resulting from bad manufacturing or reduction of efficacy by degradation of the formulation) and curbing the epidemic to an extent in an acute emergency situation is quite easy to make. As the reported vaccine safety and efficacy data on the population level is on the real manufactured product as it is administered to humans, the current reports of real-life efficacy and tolerable safety profiles (compared to covid) on the short term also already eliminates some of these fears by now, hundreds of millions have taken these and it's no problem on a half year term and again these are not deactivated viruses they are just spike sequences so comparing with botched vaccination campaigns that included live virus are inappropriate.
Finally, if you want to appeal to authority because you did some work as an engineer in a plant, how much people working in vaccine development are refusing these vaccines? How much people at the pfizer plant in puurs are refusing vaccines? What do you think the vaccination rate is of people who are professionally involved in clinical trials, QC of vaccines, etc? What do you think my former classmates and coworkers that now work in process chemistry or clinical research would say if I told them I'm waiting for a non emergency approved cGMP certified vaccine to take in a few years?they had a large and accelerated "phase 1" trials that they called 'phase 1/2/3' with many participants, then they released it to market, then in parallel with mass vaccination, ie pfizer continued the approval process. i think it's kind of morbidly funny they're going thru the motions. pfizer says 18 months from now they'll check in with the first 20 non-placebo test subjects to see if there were any mid-term side effects. but as this post goes on you'll hopefully see, that all means less than it normally does, and the FDA will naturally be interested, in terms of the intristic properties of the therapy, not in the 20, but in the billion or so who were injected with it, and approval will hinge on the megatrial.
the point of cGMP is to tie SOPs and physical manufacturing equipment to a target molecule. 'your process is your product'. try to imagine what a pharmaceutical plant built in <6 months looks like. normally your manufacturing suites use custom equipment, except turnaround at applikon is 6 months so that means pfizer borrowed spares from other plant sites. either nothing is sized right, or their plants use 100% disposables (which is cutting-edge engineering in and of itself-- probably spares). something as simple as a CIP procedure or autoclave procedure takes many months of testing; they didn't do that, they guessed their parameters. are standard HDPE bags compatible with the surfaces of these nanobubbles? what about elastomers, were they tested for compatibility with this novel product, like they'd be in a normal cGMP facility? does 1 ft/s flow in a 1/4" PVC flex hose shear the nanobubble and release the mRNA? what if the operator moves the reactor and the line kinks? does your wash step catch that? how about maybe the largest PCR plant in human history, how'd scale up go. etc etc
a normal plant has an answer to all those questions: cGMP. you've told your regulator you are making THIS molecule and ONLY this molecule, in THIS plant, and every key parameter in your plant has been tested and tied to the manufacture of this molecule. if an engineer wants to touch anything in this plant, they need essentially to write an argument to the FDA (called a CCR, change control request) saying why, despite this change, the plant will continue to make the SAME molecule that they approved. these range from 'this supplier got bought out 15 years ago but we found a like-for-like' to new SOPs, new elastomers in secondary process contact, whatever. the key to a CCR is that you've established 1) a stable process baseline, 2) a physical understanding of the change, and why 2 doesn't alter 1. i must have written like 40 of these, mainly in cell culture.
now subtract cGMP. there's no baseline process, it's a novel plant. it's well-known that novel plants take a year+ after construction to bring under acceptable process control. under cGMP, the clinical trials give engineers time to build the plant in parallel, to guarantee that what the lab's making and trial participants are receiving, matches the output of the world-scale plant. so during trials the plant operators perform pseudo-campaigns, first as engineering runs, 2 to 4 of those, then two conformance runs monitored by the FDA. these take years. but we subtracted cGMP, so nevermind conforming the plant to the trial molecule. normally it would be impossible to do something like, swap your nanobubble suite equipment mid-campaign, replacing whatever spare parts plant they started with in january. normally the process would be tied to this exact equipment--'your process is your product'. but again, no cGMP, no change control, no target therapy, no batch verification with legal weight. the engineer has a free hand. do you understand what i'm saying? it doesn't even make sense, except for analogy's sake, to talk about phase 1 or phase 3 trials here, because the regulatory chain tying the lab-made trial therapy, to what we're receiving en masse, has been broken. there's nothing tying the output of this plant, built in quarter-time out of spare parts, to clinical trial. there are no FDA monitored key process parameters, no time temp and concentration ranges to violate at each unit, no third-party verification that what came out of the plant on monday, matches what comes out of the plant on friday, matches what they swore to the FDA they were making in trials.
"(using mRNA instead of live virus) significantly alters the spectrum of things that can go wrong when cGMP like standards are grossly ignored... so comparing with botched vaccination campaigns that included live virus are inappropriate" no, i think the cutter-salk debacle is an appropriate comparison: novel vaccine process, no cGMP, unknown risks. the spectrum of risk for nanoparticle-mRNA therapy is different, and in a few years we'll understand the risks better, unfortunately because of this recklessness. global biopharma, due to intense nationalist pressures, has abandoned a century of best practices to deliver these therapies, and i really do hope all goes well. but like the 52% unvaxed majority in my county, who as a fellow communist i hope you know aren't stupid, like them i'm playing it safe.
you and them are stupid
it's impossible to overestimate how stupid the average person is, it's interesting because our little culture here is very insular and insulated and i think the main problem with lf/rhizzone/wddp/whatever is that you simply don't have enough contact with the common person and it's easy to let this insularity color your political outlook insofar as you don't often enough take into consideration the complete and undeniable absolute uselessness of all but maybe a dozen or so people in any united states county. sit there and try to imagine the stupidest person you can. you probably won't be able to, because by virtue of being able to operate a computer and being discerning enough to have orbited your fey, lugubrious ass to this website, you have entirely lost touch with the average human being and the absolute fucking inane garbage thoughts that dominate their every waking moment. the dumbest and most vile thing you can imagine--now double that, and you've almost accounted for the majority of shit that calls themselves human in your vicinity. it's the height of arrogance to think you're capable of salvaging this mess, and the height of ignorance to think it's worth salvaging
toyot posted:they had a large and accelerated "phase 1" trials that they called 'phase 1/2/3' with many participants, then they released it to market, then in parallel with mass vaccination, ie pfizer continued the approval process. i think it's kind of morbidly funny they're going thru the motions. pfizer says 18 months from now they'll check in with the first 20 non-placebo test subjects to see if there were any mid-term side effects. but as this post goes on you'll hopefully see, that all means less than it normally does, and the FDA will naturally be interested, in terms of the intristic properties of the therapy, not in the 20, but in the billion or so who were injected with it, and approval will hinge on the megatrial.
sure i agree comparing it with the ordinary timeline of clinical approval is not a perfect analogy but if we're gonna make it is just not like "phase 1", as there were thousands enrolled. It is a known practice to sometimes fuse several of the phases, for example in oncology drugs phase 1 and 2 may be merged. RE:the trial size, in amerika pfizer vaxx got EUA 11 december 2020. the so called phase 2/3 trial initiated july 27th, expanded throughout and included those 43K volunteers. When the EUA was granted the immediate endpoint of proven efficacy was reached. you are correct that phase 3 is not formally completed as per definition nothing can be said longer term than the existence time of the vaccine, which is like a year. But we shouldn't forget we are comparing these possible longterm effects with possible longterm effects of covid in unvaccinated subjects, scaled down for chance of getting infected. I think there is overwhelming consensus, especially by now, that the comparison will come out very favorably. On a more limited scale injected mRNA has been used for quite a long time (10+ years) in clinical trials so anything particularly harmful about mRNA as a therapeutic category (like a very significant amount of deaths, cancers or other severe damage) would have some signs pointing that way by now.
toyot posted:the point of cGMP is to tie SOPs and physical manufacturing equipment to a target molecule. 'your process is your product'. try to imagine what a pharmaceutical plant built in <6 months looks like. normally your manufacturing suites use custom equipment, except turnaround at applikon is 6 months so that means pfizer borrowed spares from other plant sites. either nothing is sized right, or their plants use 100% disposables (which is cutting-edge engineering in and of itself-- probably spares). something as simple as a CIP procedure or autoclave procedure takes many months of testing; they didn't do that, they guessed their parameters. are standard HDPE bags compatible with the surfaces of these nanobubbles? what about elastomers, were they tested for compatibility with this novel product, like they'd be in a normal cGMP facility? does 1 ft/s flow in a 1/4" PVC flex hose shear the nanobubble and release the mRNA? what if the operator moves the reactor and the line kinks? does your wash step catch that? how about maybe the largest PCR plant in human history, how'd scale up go. etc etc
a normal plant has an answer to all those questions: cGMP. you've told your regulator you are making THIS molecule and ONLY this molecule, in THIS plant, and every key parameter in your plant has been tested and tied to the manufacture of this molecule. if an engineer wants to touch anything in this plant, they need essentially to write an argument to the FDA (called a CCR, change control request) saying why, despite this change, the plant will continue to make the SAME molecule that they approved. these range from 'this supplier got bought out 15 years ago but we found a like-for-like' to new SOPs, new elastomers in secondary process contact, whatever. the key to a CCR is that you've established 1) a stable process baseline, 2) a physical understanding of the change, and why 2 doesn't alter 1. i must have written like 40 of these, mainly in cell culture.
now subtract cGMP. there's no baseline process, it's a novel plant. it's well-known that novel plants take a year+ after construction to bring under acceptable process control. under cGMP, the clinical trials give engineers time to build the plant in parallel, to guarantee that what the lab's making and trial participants are receiving, matches the output of the world-scale plant. so during trials the plant operators perform pseudo-campaigns, first as engineering runs, 2 to 4 of those, then two conformance runs monitored by the FDA. these take years. but we subtracted cGMP, so nevermind conforming the plant to the trial molecule. normally it would be impossible to do something like, swap your nanobubble suite equipment mid-campaign, replacing whatever spare parts plant they started with in january. normally the process would be tied to this exact equipment--'your process is your product'. but again, no cGMP, no change control, no target therapy, no batch verification with legal weight. the engineer has a free hand. do you understand what i'm saying? it doesn't even make sense, except for analogy's sake, to talk about phase 1 or phase 3 trials here, because the regulatory chain tying the lab-made trial therapy, to what we're receiving en masse, has been broken. there's nothing tying the output of this plant, built in quarter-time out of spare parts, to clinical trial. there are no FDA monitored key process parameters, no time temp and concentration ranges to violate at each unit, no third-party verification that what came out of the plant on monday, matches what comes out of the plant on friday, matches what they swore to the FDA they were making in trials.
As you said, the FDA and other similar agencies loosened some of the cGMP requirements for emergency reasons, including some space for negotiation. But how loosened are these requirements really? I did not look this up before, but as it turns out not that loosened at all.
https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/emergency-use-authorization-medical-products-and-related-authorities posted:"FDA generally expects that EUA products will be produced, stored, and distributed in compliance with cGMPs; however, limits or waivers may be granted in an EUA on a case-by-case basis, after consideration of the circumstances and of any alternative proposed approach
You can read the current recommendations here: https://www.fda.gov/media/142749/download. As you can see, it is quite far removed from the wild west situation described above. The document the EMA provided upon approval of the pfizer vaccine (a bit later than amerika approved it) has a lot of details about the manufacturing process. As it turns out, it is basically GMP compliant. It also addresses some of your specific concerns about batch control, process consistency, etc. I very highly recommend reading p31-41, you will see it is quite reasonable, particularly after addressing EMA concerns. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf
After further information was obtained from the sites and inspectors, questions regarding the manufacturing were addressed and manufacturing authorisations and GMP certificates are in place for all active substance and finished product manufacturing and testing sites
When comparing with ordinary small organic molecules the mRNA vaccines have certain process advantages, nucleotide synthesis is routine, expression and scale up etc is fairly simple and to an extent "general" at least more general than e.g. transferring knowledge from one large scale hydrogenation to another, a multistep synthesis of a small organic molecule needs far more individual process optimization. On the other hand, there are also certain advantages over other "biologicals", because unlike mAbs, traditional vaccines etc there is a much lower chance of biological contaminants during a mRNA product manufacturing endeavor as the pathogen is not involved at any stage. In a way mRNA tech is ideally suited for situations where a quick rollout and scale up to GMP certified process is needed, consult below paper for a more in depth explanation in case you are curious or disagree. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6453507/
from that article(published 2019):
All components needed for mRNA production are available at the Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) grade, and industrial-scale production facilities designed to produce up to 30 million doses of RNA-based products per year are being established.41, 42
All in all I don't see any major reasons to doubt manufacturing quality.
toyot posted:"(using mRNA instead of live virus) significantly alters the spectrum of things that can go wrong when cGMP like standards are grossly ignored... so comparing with botched vaccination campaigns that included live virus are inappropriate" no, i think the cutter-salk debacle is an appropriate comparison: novel vaccine process, no cGMP, unknown risks. the spectrum of risk for nanoparticle-mRNA therapy is different, and in a few years we'll understand the risks better, unfortunately because of this recklessness. global biopharma, due to intense nationalist pressures, has abandoned a century of best practices to deliver these therapies, and i really do hope all goes well. but like the 52% unvaxed majority in my county, who as a fellow communist i hope you know aren't stupid, like them i'm playing it safe.
There are a few reasons why i make the claim that the risk spectrum is altered favorably. As i mentioned before, no pathogen ever enters the equation, it is spike sequence and vehicle only. This means the risk of issue will likely come from 1. regular chemical contaminants/impurities 2. mRNA contaminants that are highly toxic 3. some mystery general mRNA toxicity effects
1. is quite unlikely, the dose of pfizer vaxx is something like 30 micrograms of mRNA, the vaxx is administered only a few times so contaminants would have to unimaginably incredible potent toxins. The EMA report includes the structure of the fancy lipids they used for the NPs, those are chemically quite benign, at least nothing i would worry about myself, i mean they are not too different from cationic lipids used in more standard contexts. also the dose is extremely low, see p 35 of EMA report
2. the sequence is not organism length it is just spike, there is no reason to believe any partial sequences would be more harmful than spike itself. if there is any measurable damage from the vaccine, i expect just spike itself binding to ACE2 and causing a bit of havoc will probably be the culprit, but covid infectees will also be expressing large amounts of spike in additions to the rest of the virus so that's irrelevant. The ongoing vaccines results also point to that not being a short term problem. see p 35 of EMA report
3. impossible to say but seems unlikely to me. your own body produces large amounts of mRNA during transcription, the uridine substitute used N1-Methylpseudouridine is common in tRNA as well.
mRNA vaccines have had small scale trials in humans for quite a while, which also decreases the likelihood of everyone suddently getting weird mrna cancer in 10 years. For example, sci-hub this book chapter written in 2008, it reports limited human trials of direct injections of mRNA vaccines, p232 :
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-72167-3_11 posted:Human clinical trials indicate that the delivery of mRNA naked or transfected in dendritic cells induces the expected antigen-specific immune response. Follow-up efficacy studies are on the way. Meanwhile, mRNA can be produced in large amounts and GMP quality, allowing the further development of mRNA-based therapies Fifteen patients were recruited and altogether 114 mRNA injections were performed. No WHO grade III or grade IV adverse event was recorded
This was 13 years ago, more recently but before the covid vaccines there have also been trials with mRNA vaccines for example this HIV one (with doses over 1 mg of mRNA as opposed to the 0.03 mg of pfizer) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6221380/ in case there were crazy freak toxicity effects we would know by now, more subtle effects of course more difficult to estimate.
Edited by Flying_horse_in_saudi_arabia ()
i think toyo mentioned that b4 but if not i will erase
toyot posted:evidence for drug efficacy and drug side-effects is won in half-decade studies, the FDA approval process. i love this tho. scratch a socialist, find a libertarian?
the famously libertarian Communist Party of Cuba
Flying_horse_in_saudi_arabia posted:we've all got a very personal stake in what is happening right now.
technically, i'm on yr side dingus, but dont be a jerk
karphead posted:Flying_horse_in_saudi_arabia posted:we've all got a very personal stake in what is happening right now.
technically, i'm on yr side dingus, but dont be a jerk
he's doing the exact opposite by telling you that what you're saying about one person applies to other people here too.
karphead posted:i honestly thought he was being sarcastic because none of this is worth arguing over
I understand, but he's not. Given the demographics of this site, most people here probably either had COVID or know someone who had it or has it right now, whether or not they realize it. More than one of us knew someone who's died from it. So that's not exactly working for or against anyone's position in this thread except for anyone here who thinks it doesn't exist at all.
aerdil posted:you and them are stupid
i think “acting stupid” is probably more correct. i respect tpaine’s unbowed misanthropy but it’s exactly because of how hard i’ve worked to keep in touch with people during this stuff, including people who greatly disagree with me politically, that i just cannot accept that most people acting stupid about it are part of some irretrievable super-class that defies material conditions. a lot of people are burning a lot of calories to try to defy reality and that’s a well-known function of ideology.
Johnson and Johnson? I prefer Stalin and Mao.
Edited by pogfan1996 ()
dizastar posted:every other day i come across the lamentations of a poster 'ah i had to tal kto this reactionary guy from work'. why didnt you infect him?
because im learning chaos magick to fuck up the free energy magnet motor he claims to be building in his garage