Jump to content

COVID-19 vaccine discussion


Texas Jeff

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

“Vaccine developers didn’t skip any testing steps, but conducted some of the steps on an overlapping schedule to gather data faster.”—Johns Hopkins Medicine

https://www.bu.edu/articles/2021/myths-vs-facts-covid-19-vaccine/

Processess that exist sequentially to optimize stafety standards were run in parallel to streamline and expedite production. Again, I get why they did it and support the wartime-esque effort behind it, but I think it's unethical to do that with legal immunity and unreasonably "mandate" the vaccination. 

Specifically preclinical testing was compressed and phases were run in parallel, clinical trial periods were shortened, and manufacturing quality control was expedited to start production ASAP (it was done even before approval, which of course was the financial risk of the manufacturers).

This is why I'm not even accounting or caring about a typical roll out of a vax which looks at long term effects and monitoring for delayed effects. That was a justifiable risk to go to market. In fact, they are ALL justifiable which I'm not disputing. I'm disputing the lack of a legal remedy for those who have been vaccine injured. Pretty pro-human, pro-labor stuff, if I may say so myself.

 

That means the trial participants were at higher risk, but by the time it was approved (EAU I’m assuming but please correct me if I’m wrong becaise it’s a big distinction) it was fully tested.  At least how I read that. 
 

I dunno, maybe things like that normally require a long term study, like monitoring trial patients for 2 years.  If so, that was obviously not completed before public rollout. 

Edited by Pato del Muerto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Processess that exist sequentially to optimize stafety standards were run in parallel to streamline and expedite production. Again, I get why they did it and support the wartime-esque effort behind it, but I think it's unethical to do that with legal immunity and unreasonably "mandate" the vaccination. 

 

Why do you think these for profit companies do ANYTHING for safety if they aren't legally required to? My guy, they normally do these things one step at a time because of how immensely expensive it is to get a drug or therapy through approvals. Running every option in parallel is how you make massive progress extremely quickly, but you also are going to burn a SHITTON of cash doing so. 

The Manhattan Project followed the same ethos; they didn't know what was going to work and what wasn't, so they did everything in parallel at once.

The COVID caccine project/effort was a medical Manhattan Project. It broke new ground into a field of science that had not really been successfully wielded and designed by man yet. mRNA vaccines had been in development since the first SARS outbreak, but it was too risky to pursue because of the potential for failure. The COVID vaccines made it through all the same trials as any other vaccine would - it just didn't do things one step at a time for fear of a failure or setback causing wasted money (and thinner profit margins), because they had a blank check to make it happen. 

 

I just completely disagree with your uncritical and unsupported opinion of it being inherently more dangerous, despite clearing the exact same regulatory and safety bar as every other vaccine and drug.

Edited by Captainant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I just completely disagree with your uncritical and unsupported opinion of it being inherently more dangerous, despite clearing the exact same regulatory and safety bar as every other vaccine and drug.

Okay, so let's assume you are right and there is nothing that makes the Covid vaccine and the vaccine's fast-tracking inherently more dangerous. Then why make it to where there is legal immunity and the people being compelled to take the vaccinations have no legal remedy, as they usually would? That strikes me as an implicit acknowledgement.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Then why make it to where there is legal immunity and the people being compelled to take the vaccinations have no legal remedy, as they usually would? That strikes me as an implicit acknowledgement.

Wtf are you even talking about Chrispy? Links? Or is this just what many people are saying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Wtf are you even talking about Chrispy? Links? Or is this just what many people are saying

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html

You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects.

  • Under the PREP Act, companies like Pfizer and Moderna have total immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines.
  • A little-known government program provides benefits to people who can prove they suffered serious injury from a vaccine.
  • That program rarely pays, covering just 29 claims over the last decade.
Edited by BeardIP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html

You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects.

  • Under the PREP Act, companies like Pfizer and Moderna have total immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines.
  • A little-known government program provides benefits to people who can prove they suffered serious injury from a vaccine.
  • That program rarely pays, covering just 29 claims over the last decade.

We can't sue Armalite or Bushmaster if one of their products has severe side effects either, why should the companies that developed the vaccine be liable?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, mdmost said:

Well bird flu looks promising for this so maybe their day is coming! You even get bleeding from the eyes with it. 

Well, one can get that from a Vic M. post in the IPIHB forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Captainant said:

We can't sue Armalite or Bushmaster if one of their products has severe side effects either, why should the companies that developed the vaccine be liable?

Because citizens aren't compelled by employers or the government, as a reasonable expectation to maintain their jobs and livlihoods, to carry a gun around in a quasi-mandate. Your analogy is horribly flawed.

And I'm not even mad at the companies or the government. I get why it was rushed and I got the vaccination in an abundance of caution for myself and as a member of my community writ large.

I'm just saying that ethically, and clearly, there should not be legal immunity. Especially if it's your contention and argument that there is literally zero distinction and inherently there is no different risk model or profile for a vaccination that was fast tracked and one that wasn't.

Edited by BeardIP
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BeardIP said:

I don't have sympathy for those who were vaccine injured but did so voluntarily because they wanted the vaccine


Right?! fuck those pieces of shit that did the right thing for themselves, the high risk people in their lives, and their communities but were unlucky! NO SYMPATHY 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, B00M said:


Right?! fuck those pieces of shit that did the right thing for themselves, the high risk people in their lives, and their communities but were unlucky! NO SYMPATHY 

I mean, okay...sure, I have general sympathy because that sucks.

I just meant (and I think you know this if you've followed the thread of the conversation) a specific sympathy for not being able to sue Pfizer or what have you. In that scenario you voluntarily took a vaccine because you wanted to. You didn't have an authority pressure you into it, and then have no legal recourse should you be injured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Captainant said:

I just completely disagree with your uncritical and unsupported opinion of it being inherently more dangerous, despite clearing the exact same regulatory and safety bar as every other vaccine and drug.

The mechanism of action is very fundamentally different than any other prior vaccine approach used before. Inherently dangerous? Not sure I would use that formulation. Good reason to exercise some caution, certainly. There is great promise, if people can get comfortable with the technology and the proteins being coded for don't cause unintended effects. The reality is that safety profile of any new drug is really not established until well after market launch. In many cases until many years after launch. I think that if most people really understood how low the bar for safety is, and why that is (simple science reasons), many would be surprised. The reality is that the drug approval process is not able to catch (not powered to detect) meaningful safety endpoints. Shits got to be really off the rails to fail safety assessments during the pre-marketing phase. The real questions are answered after you get a few hundred thousand people to take it and get some "long-term" follow-up. The COVID vaccines are somewhat unique in that you had a huge number of people coming online in short time frame and in the context of a environment where they were literally just driving cars through parking lots at stadiums to get their shots. The first wave exposure data is an absolute mess. 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The first wave exposure data is an absolute mess. 

It's almost like there was a concerted effort during the first wave to act like there was nothing wrong at all, or something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeardIP said:

I mean, okay...sure, I have general sympathy because that sucks.

I just meant (and I think you know this if you've followed the thread of the conversation) a specific sympathy for not being able to sue Pfizer or what have you. In that scenario you voluntarily took a vaccine because you wanted to. You didn't have an authority pressure you into it, and then have no legal recourse should you be injured.

If Pfizer or Moderna made a product that has a safety profile on par with other medications, why should they be the ones on the financial hook for AEs?

1) have health insurance, use it.  Greatly minimizes financial exposure.  My empathy is minimal for those that could have health insurance at a reasonable price but choose to keep the money instead  (I have a stepbrother in this category)

2) for other, probably unusual circumstances, set aside a pool of money.  Of course that’s a government handout so some would be opposed to that on those grounds  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's almost like there was a concerted effort during the first wave to act like there was nothing wrong at all, or something. 

That has nothing to do with the being made. CMS data collection and sharing was a shit show, the non-CMS data is not much better. People were getting shots left and right without the admin being documented consistently to electronic healthcare data sources that are one of the primary tools used for post authorization safety surveillance. It's all understandable in terms of how it played out. The objective was the get shots in the arm. But the reality is that the exposure data is totally unreliable, in a world where these data sources already have significant limitations. 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Poester said:

My friend got the OG Covid and his taste/smell have never fully recovered. He says that coffee tastes like gasoline and marinara makes him sick to his stomach. I’d rather have the vaccine side effects I think. 
 

I don’t regret getting the vaccine, but it was unnecessary based on my age and risk factors. It’s easy to look back now and be more objective. At the time I definitely got swept up in the panic… Meh, live and learn I guess. 

Your first paragraph points out why it was necessary. And there is no age / risk factor  demo that was completely safe from the novel coronavirus. I recently saw a healthy 36 yo patient (33 when she contracted covid pre vaccine) who went into cardiac arrest and coded. She had Covid and mild fever aches and cough but went to ER with chest pain. She was being discharged from the ER after rule out MI (normal ekg and cardiac enzymes < 30 minutes prior to the arrest); they got her back and took her straight to the cath lab where they found complete occlusion of the LAD (widowmaker) and one other artery. 
 

so would you rather have had a super rare complication of Covid infection or super rare complication of the vaccine?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this topic is soon to be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction here in the New Surly Journal of Medicine, so someone dust off the Covid Origin thread and we can figure that one out next.  

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Your first paragraph points out why it was necessary. And there is no age / risk factor  demo that was completely safe from the novel coronavirus. I recently saw a healthy 36 yo patient (33 when she contracted covid pre vaccine) who went into cardiac arrest and coded. She had Covid and mild fever aches and cough but went to ER with chest pain. She was being discharged from the ER after rule out MI (normal ekg and cardiac enzymes < 30 minutes prior to the arrest); they got her back and took her straight to the cath lab where they found complete occlusion of the LAD (widowmaker) and one other artery. 
 

so would you rather have had a super rare complication of Covid infection or super rare complication of the vaccine?

I can pray away the disease.  Duh

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Andreas Vesalius said:

Not sure where you get 1% mortality rate

There are some red flags that should be followed. Now will they?

The official number of people with disabilities made a jump that coincided with vaccine rollouts and was concentrated in the employed population. 

IMG-1932.jpg

IMG-1931.jpg

What’s a couple million here or there?

There's also the issue of perisistently elevated excess deaths and increasing cancer rates. The cancer rates had been trending up but need to be followed further. 

Is any of this the vaccine? It's suspicious but we don’t know. Our public health services don't seem to be interested in investigation as far as I can tell. That's strange. 

 

The bottom line is our system is dismissing a lot of people with real issues. Surveillance has been poor for a variety of reasons, many discussed in that column. Ignorance is bliss for the govt. You don't believe me? Listen to the former FDA commissioner in the Nyt. 

 

But in a recent interview, Dr. Janet Woodcock, a longtime leader of the Food and Drug Administration, who retired in February, said she believed that some recipients had experienced uncommon but “serious” and “life-changing” reactions beyond those described by federal agencies. 

“I feel bad for those people,” said Dr. Woodcock, who became the F.D.A.’s acting commissioner in January 2021 as the vaccines were rolling out. “I believe their suffering should be acknowledged, that they have real problems, and they should be taken seriously.”

“I’m disappointed in myself,” she added. “I did a lot of things I feel very good about, but this is one of the few things I feel I just didn’t bring it home.”

Hmm what else happened at the same time as vaccines?

 

also brand new username and your first post is here? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, immamac said:

Why is this thread active in 2024?

Because every once in a while, some anti-vax nutcase under a new handle (we all know who it is) will periodically come in here to bump it. 

To wit, a post from this weekend that revived the discussion after three months of nothing.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Your first paragraph points out why it was necessary. And there is no age / risk factor  demo that was completely safe from the novel coronavirus. I recently saw a healthy 36 yo patient (33 when she contracted covid pre vaccine) who went into cardiac arrest and coded. She had Covid and mild fever aches and cough but went to ER with chest pain. She was being discharged from the ER after rule out MI (normal ekg and cardiac enzymes < 30 minutes prior to the arrest); they got her back and took her straight to the cath lab where they found complete occlusion of the LAD (widowmaker) and one other artery. 
 

so would you rather have had a super rare complication of Covid infection or super rare complication of the vaccine?

I’m pretty sure I answered that question in my post you quoted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, immamac said:

Why is this thread active in 2024?

Yeah, the state Covid numbers are very low. Thankfully. Knock on wood.

Now we’re still catching up on the consequences of delayed care for everything else and the lack of primary care expansion due to poor funding and most hospital systems being underwater financially.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Poester said:

I’m pretty sure I answered that question in my post you quoted. 

I read it as if you had it to do over again you wouldn’t get the initial vax. I’m sorry if I misconstrued. Novel viruses are very very bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Newdoc said:

Yeah, the state Covid numbers are very low. Thankfully. Knock on wood.

Now we’re still catching up on the consequences of delayed care for everything else and the lack of primary care expansion due to poor funding and most hospital systems being underwater financially.

Don’t worry HCA BSW and THR are buying all the distressed hospitals. Then everything will be great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2024 at 6:45 PM, BeardIP said:

Okay, so let's assume you are right and there is nothing that makes the Covid vaccine and the vaccine's fast-tracking inherently more dangerous. Then why make it to where there is legal immunity and the people being compelled to take the vaccinations have no legal remedy, as they usually would? That strikes me as an implicit acknowledgement.

 

On 5/6/2024 at 7:32 PM, BeardIP said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html

You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects.

  • Under the PREP Act, companies like Pfizer and Moderna have total immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines.
  • A little-known government program provides benefits to people who can prove they suffered serious injury from a vaccine.
  • That program rarely pays, covering just 29 claims over the last decade.

You're citing the PREP Act, which has been in some form the law of the land for almost 20 years, as an illustration of why the vaccine development and approval process of the Coronavirus vaccine about 15 years later was inherently dangerous?I believe that is about the definition of arguing in bad fucking faith. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2024 at 10:53 PM, Captainant said:

It's almost like there was a concerted effort during the first wave to act like there was nothing wrong at all, or something. 

It's almost like the federal government acted in a manner to prevent a Panic-demic on top of a pandemic...  histrionics are well preserved even here   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

 

You're citing the PREP Act, which has been in some form the law of the land for almost 20 years, as an illustration of why the vaccine development and approval process of the Coronavirus vaccine about 15 years later was inherently dangerous?I believe that is about the definition of arguing in bad fucking faith. 

A few points:

1) From what I've read, the PREP Act is not a blanket order for all vaccine development. In fact, from the website: 

Quote

 

The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary) to issue a PREP Act declaration. The declaration provides immunity from liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims:

of loss caused, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from administration or use of countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions

determined by the Secretary to constitute a present, or credible risk of a future public health emergency

to entities and individuals involved in the development, manufacture, testing, distribution, administration, and use of such countermeasures

 

The PREP Act empowers the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to immunize “covered persons," including pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers, that make what are called countermeasures including vaccines from liability in a declared public health emergency.

On March 17, 2020 (effective February 4, 2020), the Secretary of HHS declared the coronavirus pandemic to be such an emergency.

Thus the manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines such as Pfizer and Moderna enjoy sweeping liability protection from personal injury or product liability suits.

2) Which, as I've said, is 1000% FINE AND GOOD, except in the cases where one was unreasonably compelled to take the vaccination. If being "mandated" to take a vaccine, you should not have legal impunity. Where it is a voluntary act of vaccination, protect the organizations who fast-tracked this to market all you want.

3) What I described above is a moral hazard and one that I am uncomfortable with. You and others might not be, and that's fine too, because reasonable minds can disagree, but it's a weird take to call someone bad faith for disagreeing with you.

4) This ammendment from last year actually makes sense to me now that the vaccination is 100% voluntary and people aren't at risk of losing their livlihoods or reasonably expected rights and privileges for not getting the vax: Eleventh Amendment to the Declaration under the PREP Act for COVID-19 Medical Countermeasures

Quote

On May 9, 2023, Secretary Becerra signed the 11th amendment to the declaration under the PREP Act for COVID-19 Medical Countermeasures. The Secretary issues this amendment to clarify that COVID-19 continues to pose a credible risk of a future public health emergency, add two new limitations on distribution, extend the time period of coverage for certain Covered Countermeasures and Covered Persons, clarify the time period of coverage for Covered Persons authorized under the Declaration, and extend the duration of the Declaration to December 31, 2024.

 

Edited by BeardIP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

A few points:

1) From what I've read, the PREP Act is not a blanket order for all vaccine development. In fact, from the website: 

The PREP Act empowers the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to immunize “covered persons," including pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers, that make what are called countermeasures including vaccines from liability in a declared public health emergency.

On March 17, 2020 (effective February 4, 2020), the Secretary of HHS declared the coronavirus pandemic to be such an emergency.

Thus the manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines such as Pfizer and Moderna enjoy sweeping liability protection from personal injury or product liability suits.

2) Which, as I've said, is 1000% FINE AND GOOD, except in the cases where one was unreasonably compelled to take the vaccination. If being "mandated" to take a vaccine, you should not have legal impunity. Where it is a voluntary act of vaccination, protect the organizations who fast-tracked this to market all you want.

3) What I described above is a moral hazard and one that I am uncomfortable with. You and others might not be, and that's fine too, because reasonable minds can disagree, but it's a weird take to call someone bad faith for disagreeing with you.

4) This ammendment from last year actually makes sense to me now that the vaccination is 100% voluntary and people aren't at risk of losing their livlihoods or reasonably expected rights and privileges for not getting the vax: Eleventh Amendment to the Declaration under the PREP Act for COVID-19 Medical Countermeasures

 

You're pointing out that PREP Act isn't a blanker order for all vaccine development after you used the PERP Act and cited it as a blanket Act that allowed all immunity, and you framed it that way to sell your point. Then you started hedging. See the irony there? Hence, ARGURING IN BAD FAITH.

Yeah, I'm just not going to get up in arms about a public health emergency, learning from it, and making changes after the fact. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You're pointing out that PREP Act isn't a blanker order for all vaccine development after you used the PERP Act and cited it as a blanket Act that allowed all immunity, and you framed it that way to sell your point. Then you started hedging. See the irony there? Hence, ARGURING IN BAD FAITH.

Yeah, I'm just not going to get up in arms about a public health emergency, learning from it, and making changes after the fact. 

I think there has been some miscommunication:

"I'm pointing out that the PREP Act isnt a blanket order for all vaccine development." Yes

"After used the PERP Act and cited it as a blanket act that allowed all immunity." No, I used it as an example of why you can't sue for being vaccine injured, if you were unreasonably compelled to take the vaccination, that was fast-tracked and rushed to market during a public health emergency. I don't care about any other immunity that may or may not exist for any other vaccination development.

"Then you started hedging. See the irony there? Hence, ARGURING IN BAD FAITH." I lost your thread of logic on this and think you are just backing into some sort of confirmation bias about what you think I think and not what I said, based on your past experiences.

"Yeah, I'm just not going to get up in arms about a public health emergency, learning from it, and making changes after the fact." That's fine as it's your prerogative. I'm simply arguing from the other angle which is that public health emergency or not, legal immunity for drug manufacturers and quasi mandates for people to take this vaccination, is a moral hazard. It was a decision and it was made and we are living with it, but one can think it's a garbage position and talk about it without being bad faith. 

I mean, some people thought Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus was fine and others saw it as problematic and it remains an interesting debate to this day. It's okay to not agree with you Sydney and not be in bad faith. I hope one day you learn that.

Edited by BeardIP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

I think there has been some miscommunication:

"I'm pointing out that the PREP Act isnt a blanket order for all vaccine development." Yes

"After used the PERP Act and cited it as a blanket act that allowed all immunity." No, I used it as an example of why you can't sue for being vaccine injured, if you were unreasonably compelled to take the vaccination, that was fast-tracked and rushed to market during a public health emergency. I don't care about any other immunity that may or may not exist for any other vaccination development.

"Then you started hedging. See the irony there? Hence, ARGURING IN BAD FAITH." I lost your thread of logic on this and think you are just backing into some sort of confirmation bias about what you think I think and not what I said, based on your past experiences.

"Yeah, I'm just not going to get up in arms about a public health emergency, learning from it, and making changes after the fact." That's fine as it's your prerogative. I'm simply arguing from the other angle which is that public health emergency or not, legal immunity for drug manufacturers and quasi mandates for people to take this vaccination, is a moral hazard. It was a decision and it was made and we are living with it, but one can think it's a garbage position and talk about it without being bad faith. 

I mean, some people thought Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus was fine and others saw it as problematic and it remains an interesting debate to this day. It's okay to not agree with you Sydney and not be in bad faith. I hope one day you learn that.

Someone cited that they didn't think this development as inherently more dangerous. You responded with, and I am paraphrasing here, "Then why make it immune from legal action" CLEARLY implying that experts knew it was inherently more dangerous, therefore they made it immune. That's what you did. 

The rest of everything you're talking about whether it is immune from legal action is just noise. Hell, I'm not even sure I disagree with you, I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or the other. But before all of that happened, you clearly implied the government believed it was more dangerous, that's why they gave it immunity. This part, right here:
 

On 5/6/2024 at 6:45 PM, BeardIP said:

Okay, so let's assume you are right and there is nothing that makes the Covid vaccine and the vaccine's fast-tracking inherently more dangerous. Then why make it to where there is legal immunity and the people being compelled to take the vaccinations have no legal remedy, as they usually would? That strikes me as an implicit acknowledgement.

Personally, I think that the government probably gave them exemption to get the fucking wheels moving on something, and you see it as "They knew this whole MNRA process was super dangerous and this is how they covered their asses" type conspiracy stuff. That's gaslighting, dude. 

Edited by SydneyCarton
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Personally, I think that the government probably gave them exemption to get the fucking wheels moving on something, and you see it as "They knew this whole MNRA process was super dangerous and this is how they covered their asses" type conspiracy stuff. That's gaslighting, dude. 

This.  1000X this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Someone cited that they didn't think this development as inherently more dangerous. You responded with, and I am paraphrasing here, "Then why make it immune from legal action" CLEARLY implying that experts knew it was inherently more dangerous, therefore they made it immune. That's what you did. 

The rest of everything you're talking about whether it is immune is just noise. Hell, I'm not even sure I disagree with you, I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or the other. But before all of that happened, you clearly implied the government believed it was more dangerous, that's why they gave it immunity. This part, right here:
 

Personally, I think that the government probably gave them exemption to get the fucking wheels moving on something, and you see it as "They knew this whole MNRA process was super dangerous and this is how they covered their asses" type conspiracy stuff. That's gaslighting, dude. 

First, thanks for the clarity. I'd rather respond to points than guess or just resort to name calling.

I think the word "inherent(ly)" is doing the heavy lifting here. 

I was responding to the poster who said that fast tracking this and stacking steps in parallel is NOT inherently more risky/dangerous than going through the motions serially. I mean, just conceptually and logically speaking, how could it be equal in risk?

Ask yourself this, if there is no inherent difference in the manufacturing risks, then why not just make the process more efficient and turn the "fast track" into the standard? It's because the overwhelmingly likely reason is that by optimizing for speed, you are sacrificing something-- and whatever that sacrifice is (e.g. an uptick in risk) it's deemed worth it, but it's also not nothing.

I simply think that a pro-human and winning move would have been to absolutely fast track the go to market, but leave an option for legal remedy if injured by the product.

Edited by BeardIP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BeardIP said:

First, thanks for the clarity. I'd rather respond to points than guess or just resort to name calling.

I think the word "inherent(ly)" is doing the heavy lifting here. 

I was responding to the poster who said that fast tracking this and stacking steps in parallel is inherently more risky/dangerous than going through the motions serially. I mean, just conceptually and logically speaking, how could it be equal in risk?

Ask yourself this, if there is no inherent difference in the manufacturing risks, then why not just make the process more efficient and turn the "fast track" into the standard? It's because the overwhelmingly likely reason is that by optimizing for speed, you are sacrificing something-- and whatever that sacrifice is (e.g. an uptick in risk) it's deemed worth it, but it's also not nothing.

I simply think that a pro-human and winning move would have been to absolutely fast track the go to market, but leave an option for legal remedy if injured by the product.

And I think the phrase "implicit acknowledgement" is doing the exact word you want it to do in your earlier post. And with your follow up above, you're basically doubling down on "OF COURSE IT'S MORE DANGEROUS, HOW COULD IT NOT BE?" The answer is, we don't know, it was the first time and no one knows what they don't know until they do something. Which leads me to my next point. What happens if the two drug companies say "You know what, if you made me do have legal remedy, we're just not going to do it, becuase we don't know what we don't know."

Becuase that's what they'd have done. And who knows what the death toll looks like now worldwide. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BeardIP said:

Ask yourself this, if there is no inherent difference in the manufacturing risks, then why not just make the process more efficient and turn the "fast track" into the standard? It's because the overwhelmingly likely reason is that by optimizing for speed, you are sacrificing something-- and whatever that sacrifice is (e.g. an uptick in risk) it's deemed worth it, but it's also not nothing.

Cost efficiency.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Ask yourself this, if there is no inherent difference in the manufacturing risks, then why not just make the process more efficient and turn the "fast track" into the standard? It's because the overwhelmingly likely reason is that by optimizing for speed, you are sacrificing something-- and whatever that sacrifice is (e.g. an uptick in risk) it's deemed worth it, but it's also not nothing.

And like I said above, the increased risk is contained within the clinicals and borne by the volunteers. 
 

if, for example, a normal dose escalation trial would start at x dose and increase until toxicity is established but in this case all of the dose cohorts are run in parallel, the higher dose cohort has higher risk because there’s no tox data available to inform dosing. 
 

but at the conclusion of all of that, the final dose selected is based on the same overall trial data and just as safe as other dose decisions. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

And I think the phrase "implicit acknowledgement" is doing the exact word you want it to do in your earlier post. And with your follow up above, you're basically doubling down on "OF COURSE IT'S MORE DANGEROUS, HOW COULD IT NOT BE?" The answer is, we don't know, it was the first time and no one knows what they don't know until they do something. Which leads me to my next point. What happens if the two drug companies say "You know what, if you made me do have legal remedy, we're just not going to do it, becuase we don't know what we don't know."

Becuase that's what they'd have done. And who knows what the death toll looks like now worldwide. 

I do stand by the idea that by invoking the PERP Act, there is "Implicit acknowledgment" of a POTENTIAL for risk and the desire and need to legally shield yourself from that risk. 

And if we took away the legal immunity and the drug companies felt that developing, in a fast tracked manner, a drug was an existential risk then....isn't that proving my original point... that the potential for risk incurred from speeding up the traditional process to bring a vaccination to market... is what makes it inherently different and potentailly more risky?

Edited by BeardIP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

And like I said above, the increased risk is contained within the clinicals and borne by the volunteers. 
 

if, for example, a normal dose escalation trial would start at x dose and increase until toxicity is established but in this case all of the dose cohorts are run in parallel, the higher dose cohort has higher risk because there’s no tox data available to inform dosing. 
 

but at the conclusion of all of that, the final dose selected is based on the same overall trial data and just as safe as other dose decisions. 

All that you said, plus the lack of sight into short and mid-term adverse effects. Which is the argument regarding vaccine injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

I do stand by the idea that by invoking the PERP Act, there is "Implicit acknowledgment" of a POTENTIAL for risk and the desire and need to legally shield yourself from that risk. 

And if we took away the legal immunity and the drug companies felt that developing, in a fast tracked manner, a drug was an existential risk then....isn't that proving my original point... that the potential for risk incurred from speeding up the traditional process to bring a vaccination to market... is what makes it inherently different and potentailly more risky?

It would only prove your point if a) it was ascertained after the fact that speeding up the traditional process created some flaw in the process that made the vaccine more dangerous to people and b) the drug turned out to be an existential risk. 

Neither has been proven to be true after the fact, covid has has basically been proven to be in line with side effects from other vaccines. So basically you're arguing for something that has been proven wrong after the fact. 

And I don't think bolding your added new work of POTENTIAL proves what you think it proves in this back and forth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

It would only prove your point if a) it was ascertained after the fact that speeding up the traditional process created some flaw in the process that made the vaccine more dangerous to people and b) the drug turned out to be an existential risk. 

Neither has been proven to be true after the fact, covid has has basically been proven to be in line with side effects from other vaccines. So basically you're arguing for something that has been proven wrong after the fact. 

And I don't think bolding your added new work of POTENTIAL proves what you think it proves in this back and forth. 

In my mind "risk" and "potential for risk" are saying the same thing; six one way and half a dozen the other. In no way, shape or form was it communicated that there was a definite or provable risk, just that by suspending legal remedy, there is an implication of an inherent difference-- an addition to the element of risk/potential risk. I mean, this seems like risk management 101 stuff. 

Looking back, I agree with you. The results are more or less in line with any other vaccination with regards to side effects (as far as I can tell and from what I've read).

But, again, the MAIN crux of the argument and issue, is that this vaccination was something that was more or less "mandated" for a goodly number of people by an unreasonable expectation for many sectors of employment and rights/privileges. If you are going to compel and force people into a vaccination, it's unethical and morally wrong to not offer a legal remedy or option for adverse outcomes. That is 100% my point.

I feel like a broken record, so I'll just leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2024 at 10:44 AM, BeardIP said:

It's obvious that there were going to be negative side effects. No chemical, medicine or drug is 100% safe for 100% of a population. Latex and Peanuts and Sulfur and even the moldy penicillin bread out front shoulda told ya.

That a small % of folks had some sort of averse reaction and/or vaccine injury is not the problem.

The problem that the article seems to be highlighting, which I think is a good thing to spotlight, is that for those who were vaccine injured, they should not be ignored.

Especially when the pharma and government had legal immunity with a rushed product.

Did you mean sulfa?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

In my mind "risk" and "potential for risk" are saying the same thing; six one way and half a dozen the other. In no way, shape or form was it communicated that there was a definite or provable risk, just that by suspending legal remedy, there is an implication of an inherent difference-- an addition to the element of risk/potential risk. I mean, this seems like risk management 101 stuff. 

Looking back, I agree with you. The results are more or less in line with any other vaccination with regards to side effects (as far as I can tell and from what I've read).

But, again, the MAIN crux of the argument and issue, is that this vaccination was something that was more or less "mandated" for a goodly number of people by an unreasonable expectation for many sectors of employment and rights/privileges. If you are going to compel and force people into a vaccination, it's unethical and morally wrong to not offer a legal remedy or option for adverse outcomes. That is 100% my point.

I feel like a broken record, so I'll just leave it at that.

I don't have a problem with the main crux of your argument, as I stated. I have a problem with the gaslighting thinly veiled "implications" that the government knew it was more dangerous than other vaccinations, when in fact the method has proven to be EXACTLY as safe as pretty much every other vaccination, which you made on the WAY to getting to your main point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I don't have a problem with the main crux of your argument, as I stated. I have a problem with the gaslighting thinly veiled "implications" that the government knew it was more dangerous than other vaccinations, when in fact the method has proven to be EXACTLY as safe as pretty much every other vaccination, which you made on the WAY to getting to your main point.

 

1) Great, so we agree on the main crux. Liberty rules.

2) My implication was that the government knew there was a risk of being more dangerous than other vaccinations, that I still maintain was the case at the time.

3) Hindsight it has been proven, in the near and mid-term, that it is more or less as safe as any other vaccination, which is great but does NOT negate the argument of #2. 

4) Further, because you agree with 1), it actually is inconsequential in that the whether it was safer or more dangerous or exactly the same risk profile, to be unreasonably compelled into taking the vaccination without any legal recourse, is problematic at best, unethical and heinous at worst, and a moral hazard at definition.

5) I did mean Sulpha; autocorrect on Sulpher @elfenix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...