nonpolitical medical issues

[armeck]

they did start mRNA vaccine development after SARS in 2003.
all failed in the lab tests due to illness and death.
I'm sorely disappointed that i've never seen anything published as to how they were improved for safety

The notion of using mRNA started in 1990s.

The story of mRNA: How a once-dismissed idea became a leading technology in the Covid vaccine race

The story of mRNA began is a tale of personal perseverance, eureka moments in the lab, soaring expectations — and an unprecedented flow of cash in biotech.

www.statnews.com

 

[armeck]

or is this just a strawman of some potential possibility that maybe might possibly happen sometime in the future that you want to address immediately?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Not to get too taboo here, but if I required those who enter my store to prove that they leaned one way or the other on government policy decisions, would you be hunky dory with that as well?

Better yet, if you had to show your ID at the door and prove that you have not gotten the vaccine via an online vaccine database before entering the store, would you be in favor of that as well?

You can do whatever you want. And we can decide not to shop there. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

 

[orientalnc]

For several years prior to the pandemic I was part of a breakfast group. We met every Wednesday at a local meat & three for a roundtable discussion of everything except politics. One of the guys is a retired pharmaceutical research chemist. His PhD is related to RNA.

Today was our first post-COVID breakfast gathering and we got an education re the mRNA vaccines. All of you who said they are not new are 100% correct. They have existed in labs for a long time and researchers have always wanted to bring them out of the lab, but were not able to figure out how to do that. COVID allowed that process accelerate. This is just the beginning.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

Can a tool and die shop require that employees wear safety glasses while in the shop area? Can they require that employees wear safety glasses while using machinery that throws metal shavings? By your arguments, why can't an employee simply state that they don't like to wear safety glasses and refuse to wear them?

Are you also against removing requirements from schools that students provide proof of vaccination for MMR, Hepatitis, and Polio? Your arguments sound a lot like the nutjobs on the internet who have been against vaccinating children for anything. (Not intending to call you a nutjob, just pointing out that you are making the same arguments as those people)

For your second argument, I have not seen any reports of any stores that are requiring proof of vaccination to enter. In fact, every store that I have been in that has signs that non-vaccinated people still need to wear masks is running on the honor system. Have you personally been prevented from entering a store because you were not vaccinated, or is this just a strawman of some potential possibility that maybe might possibly happen sometime in the future that you want to address immediately?

To answer your question, a lot of this is hypothetical except for maybe schools. What I have a problem with is businesses, schools, and governments using a vaccine without full FDA approval as a discriminatory tool. Once the FDA takes full responsibility for these vaccines, you may have a point.

 

[RonJohn]

To answer your question, a lot of this is hypothetical except for maybe schools. What I have a problem with is businesses, schools, and governments using a vaccine without full FDA approval as a discriminatory tool. Once the FDA takes full responsibility for these vaccines, you may have a point.

If your actual concern is that the drugs are not fully FDA Approved at this point, that is a reasonable concern. Your posts haven't come across as reasonable, they have sounded like someone stating talking points. I think too many that argue against you conflict EUA and "FDA Approved" in order to try to make stronger arguments. If there are obvious fallacies in an argument, it doesn't help lead the person towards that view, it heightens their resistance to that point of view. Works that way for both sides: "Already FDA Approved" or "They are going to require vaccine tattoo barcodes to buy groceries"

I understand that Pfizer has started their application and Moderna is planning to very soon. I also understand that there has been some pressure for the FDA to be expeditious about the process. (Not the data or information, just the bureaucratic process) It is quite possible the Pfizer will be fully approved within a few months and Moderna not far behind that. There isn't any data that is hidden in private studies at this point. Almost half of the US population has received at least one dose of the vaccines, so any large groups of bad reactions would be public information already. At this point, it is more like a formality. However, early on I had stated that there were people who were concerned about the speed at which the vaccines went through the process and I do understand people being concerned about it.

I do think that this whole ordeal about the vaccines has further exposed the FDA approval process. Drugs and medical equipment routinely are approved in Europe months or years before being approved in the US. I seem to recall that when Pfizer first applied for Emergency Use Authorization, the panelists were sent the information. They were able to review the information, but procedure dictated a two or three or four week delay before meeting to vote. That is for an emergency. I am not an expert, but as I understand it studies for medical equipment and drugs can take six to eight months. Then the company submits an application. After the application submittal, there is an extended bureaucratic process of reviews, questions, answers or resubmittals, more reviews, meetings, more reviews, more meetings after which it will finally be sent forward for approval at a meeting sometime in the not to near future. That process can take from several months to years. I understand being careful. I understand having a process. In the case of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine, I seriously doubt that any person who voted had not kept track of the progress of the development. It is extremely likely that all they needed was the data from the study in order to decide how to vote. In fact, I believe I remember reports of people on the panel who stated how they were going to vote within hours of receiving the data. Why was a weeks long delay before being able to schedule the meeting necessary? Why is it that when new insulin pumps are developed, there is a six month to one year delay AFTER all of the data is submitted before they are approved? Why is it that when a good cancer drug is developed patients from the US travel to Europe or Mexico to get it AFTER the studies are completed and the information is made available to the FDA? It all seems like a huge bureaucratic mess to me, especially in the instance of cancer drugs. The patient might be harmed by the drug, but the patient might also be dead before the drug works it's way through the application process.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Almost half of the US population has received at least one dose of the vaccines, so any large groups of bad reactions would be public information already. At this point, it is more like a formality. However, early on I had stated that there were people who were concerned about the speed at which the vaccines went through the process and I do understand people being concerned about it.

This isn't really true. There are about 175,000 blood cancer diagnosis each year. Lets say this number steps up 10% later this year, and then another 10% next year. We've ended the control group - there will be no way to ever know where its coming from. Could be something environmental. (There are environmental contributors to cancer clusters pretty regularly.) Nobody will ever be able to narrow it down. I hope that won't ever happen and don't think it will, but we won't ever definitively know if something like that does happen.

 

[RonJohn]

This isn't really true. There are about 175,000 blood cancer diagnosis each year. Lets say this number steps up 10% later this year, and then another 10% next year. We've ended the control group - there will be no way to ever know where its coming from. Could be something environmental. (There are environmental contributors to cancer clusters pretty regularly.) Nobody will ever be able to narrow it down. I hope that won't ever happen and don't think it will, but we won't ever definitively know if something like that does happen.

Even if the control groups were not vaccinated early, the control group trials typically only last for a year or two. Those groups were already too small to positively associate to an increase in a disease that isn't prevalent, such as the one you mentioned. If there are 175 million vaccinated and 17,500 additional blood cancer diagnoses (based on 10% additional), that is a 1 in 1,000 chance. There were approximately 21,000 in the Pfizer placebo group. If they get blood cancer at the same rate as the general population, that would mean that about 10 or 11 from the placebo group would develop it. An increase of 10% is 1. With a group as small as 21,000 I doubt it would fall in line that closely. It might be somewhere between 2 and 20. Therefore trying to measure the effect of the vaccine on that disease would be extremely difficult.

In normal studies, the placebo group is given access to the vaccine within a year or two. I believe in the case of polio, it was about one year from the start of the study. That is actually part of the anti-vaxxers (previous nut-cases, not current political branding) arguments. They argue that such vaccines caused an increase in cases of autism. The conveniently ignore the fact that autism wasn't widely acknowledged and diagnosed before. You can't measure current autism cases against cases in the 40s and 50s because nobody can reasonable know what the rate of autism was at that time.

 

[GT_EE78]

The notion of using mRNA started in 1990s.

The story of mRNA: How a once-dismissed idea became a leading technology in the Covid vaccine race

The story of mRNA began is a tale of personal perseverance, eureka moments in the lab, soaring expectations — and an unprecedented flow of cash in biotech.

www.statnews.com

Thanks, that was an interesting read. If i understood it correctly 2018 was a turning point when mRNA was still killing the lab animals and deemed too toxic for human tests.
Seems ironic that he was trying to create an equivalent of dead baby stem cells from adult stem cells using mRNA and they didn't mention whatever happened with that effort. Others found a different usage for this discovery in vaccines and meds .. .. still no mention if the lab tests were repeated successfully . Given the timeline after the covid outbreak ,there was no time for lab tests and 2020 appears to be the first mRNA tests on humans. I guess one way to keep those pesky lab animals from dying is to skip the tests.... (I hope they really didn't do that)
No Lab tests,No long term safety tests, no more placebo control group. One has to wonder how radically the FDA will have to modify it's rules to give these vaccines a full approval?

 

[forensicbuzz]

Sure. If we don't take part in your utopia, we may die. I get it, but it's still our right as Americans to accept the level of risk the we are willing to live with.

Nah. It's already been decided in the Supreme Court back early in the 20th Century that you don't have the RIGHT to refuse a vaccination if it is mandatory.

 

[forensicbuzz]

If your actual concern is that the drugs are not fully FDA Approved at this point, that is a reasonable concern. Your posts haven't come across as reasonable, they have sounded like someone stating talking points. I think too many that argue against you conflict EUA and "FDA Approved" in order to try to make stronger arguments. If there are obvious fallacies in an argument, it doesn't help lead the person towards that view, it heightens their resistance to that point of view. Works that way for both sides: "Already FDA Approved" or "They are going to require vaccine tattoo barcodes to buy groceries"

I understand that Pfizer has started their application and Moderna is planning to very soon. I also understand that there has been some pressure for the FDA to be expeditious about the process. (Not the data or information, just the bureaucratic process) It is quite possible the Pfizer will be fully approved within a few months and Moderna not far behind that. There isn't any data that is hidden in private studies at this point. Almost half of the US population has received at least one dose of the vaccines, so any large groups of bad reactions would be public information already. At this point, it is more like a formality. However, early on I had stated that there were people who were concerned about the speed at which the vaccines went through the process and I do understand people being concerned about it.

I do think that this whole ordeal about the vaccines has further exposed the FDA approval process. Drugs and medical equipment routinely are approved in Europe months or years before being approved in the US. I seem to recall that when Pfizer first applied for Emergency Use Authorization, the panelists were sent the information. They were able to review the information, but procedure dictated a two or three or four week delay before meeting to vote. That is for an emergency. I am not an expert, but as I understand it studies for medical equipment and drugs can take six to eight months. Then the company submits an application. After the application submittal, there is an extended bureaucratic process of reviews, questions, answers or resubmittals, more reviews, meetings, more reviews, more meetings after which it will finally be sent forward for approval at a meeting sometime in the not to near future. That process can take from several months to years. I understand being careful. I understand having a process. In the case of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine, I seriously doubt that any person who voted had not kept track of the progress of the development. It is extremely likely that all they needed was the data from the study in order to decide how to vote. In fact, I believe I remember reports of people on the panel who stated how they were going to vote within hours of receiving the data. Why was a weeks long delay before being able to schedule the meeting necessary? Why is it that when new insulin pumps are developed, there is a six month to one year delay AFTER all of the data is submitted before they are approved? Why is it that when a good cancer drug is developed patients from the US travel to Europe or Mexico to get it AFTER the studies are completed and the information is made available to the FDA? It all seems like a huge bureaucratic mess to me, especially in the instance of cancer drugs. The patient might be harmed by the drug, but the patient might also be dead before the drug works it's way through the application process.

Nah, this has been his biggest issue from the beginning.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Nah. It's already been decided in the Supreme Court back early in the 20th Century that you don't have the RIGHT to refuse a vaccination if it is mandatory.

Oliver Wendell Holmes also wrote in the majority opinion for Buck v Bell “three generations of imbeciles is enough”. He citied the Jacobsen ruling to support eugenics, you know the same kind of **** the Nazis did. I’m not sure we should be using that ruling to compel vaccinations but then again I’m a freedom loving type guy & I’m sure others disagree believing it’s all ok as long as you have the power.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Oliver Wendell Holmes also wrote in the majority opinion for Buck v Bell “three generations of imbeciles is enough”. He citied the Jacobsen ruling to support eugenics, you know the same kind of **** the Nazis did. I’m not sure we should be using that ruling to compel vaccinations but then again I’m a freedom loving type guy & I’m sure others disagree believing it’s all ok as long as you have the power.

I'm just saying that if they were to require Covid19 vaccinations, it would immediately be challenged in court. That case would quickly elevate to the Supreme Court where there is already precedent from similar conditions to uphold the requirement. A new Court could rule differently, but typically, precedent is huge in higher court rulings.

The Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I'm just saying that if they were to require Covid19 vaccinations, it would immediately be challenged in court. That case would quickly elevate to the Supreme Court where there is already precedent from similar conditions to uphold the requirement. A new Court could rule differently, but typically, precedent is huge in higher court rulings.

The Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."

All true. The arguments for over ruling are mainly:
1) A ****ty lawless original ruling.
2) We aren’t in a pandemic anymore.

Our weekly deaths have been below the expected number for almost 3 straight months. So by all reasonable definitions, there isn’t actually a pandemic.

Now for the funny ending punchline…that’s BECAUSE so many people got vaccinated.

 

[LibertyTurns]

@forensicbuzz The opinion ended with “The police power of the state, whether exercised by the legislature or by a local body acting under its authority may be exerted in such circumstances or by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases as to justify the interference of the court to prevent wrong and oppression.”

They permitted the smallpox case to prevail because it was ruled a significant danger in a limited locality, not a general threat over a large area affecting a small percentage of people where an insignificant percentage of people died. That being said it’s a poor decision by the court.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

@forensicbuzz The opinion ended with “The police power of the state, whether exercised by the legislature or by a local body acting under its authority may be exerted in such circumstances or by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases as to justify the interference of the court to prevent wrong and oppression.”

They permitted the smallpox case to prevail because it was ruled a significant danger in a limited locality, not a general threat over a large area affecting a small percentage of people where an insignificant percentage of people died. That being said it’s a poor decision by the court.

Also, anyone who would compare small pox to Covid 19 is literally insane.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Also, anyone who would compare small pox to Covid 19 is literally insane.

Although I agree with you, that's not really relevant. The only relevance is whether the scientific leadership helping shape policy believe it is for the better good of the Community to mandate vaccination. SCOTUS basically said that the scientists are smarter than the politicians, so the opinions of the scientists should carry.

@forensicbuzz The opinion ended with “The police power of the state, whether exercised by the legislature or by a local body acting under its authority may be exerted in such circumstances or by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases as to justify the interference of the court to prevent wrong and oppression.”

They permitted the smallpox case to prevail because it was ruled a significant danger in a limited locality, not a general threat over a large area affecting a small percentage of people where an insignificant percentage of people died. That being said it’s a poor decision by the court.

I'm not arguing the merits of the opinion, just that Courts tend to lean heavily on precedent, so IF the COVID19 vaccine(s) became mandatory, court challenges may not be as successful as most think. Also, it clearly points out that the "greater good" takes precedent over "individual liberties." That's going to grind against both conservative and progressive libertarians.

I'm not lumping @ramblinwreckguru in either of these groups because I believe his primary issue has always been from the viewpoint of safety and a "rush to approval" approach to the vaccines. While I disagree with his opinion, I can respect his perspective as valid, depending on risk tolerance/aversion.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Although I agree with you, that's not really relevant. The only relevance is whether the scientific leadership helping shape policy believe it is for the better good of the Community to mandate vaccination. SCOTUS basically said that the scientists are smarter than the politicians, so the opinions of the scientists should carry.


I'm not arguing the merits of the opinion, just that Courts tend to lean heavily on precedent, so IF the COVID19 vaccine(s) became mandatory, court challenges may not be as successful as most think. Also, it clearly points out that the "greater good" takes precedent over "individual liberties." That's going to grind against both conservative and progressive libertarians.

I'm not lumping @ramblinwreckguru in either of these groups because I believe his primary issue has always been from the viewpoint of safety and a "rush to approval" approach to the vaccines. While I disagree with his opinion, I can respect his perspective as valid, depending on risk tolerance/aversion.

Both of these are excellent points. Judges aren't shy about overturning precedent if they deem it worthy. But it is (rightly so) a higher hurdle to clear. And second, think about this last year as a data point - first amendment rights were curtailed during the pandemic. The constitution doesn't say you have the right to peacefully assemble or practice your religion...only when given permission. Yet that's what happened. To me all of that is completely unlawful, but it won't surprise me one bit if those restrictions continue to happen. People will lean on the courts and 'the greater good'.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Dr. Fauci is an absolute ****ing disaster. The emails recently released through a Buzzfeed FOIA request show, among other things:
1) Fauci telling others that cloth masks do not work.
2) Fauci (under oath in Congressional testimony I might add) stated that Dr. Baric (UNC virologist, collaborated with the Wuhan Virology Institute) did not do gain-of-function research, nor did the NIH fund any at all. Yet now we see emails where he physically typed and attached PDF documents stating gain-of-function work Dr. Baric was doing with Wuhan and that the team urgently needed to get together to discuss (as the pandemic was starting).
3) Emails from colleagues at Scripps explaining with supporting information that covid looked like it had been engineered in a lab. Yet publicly he was stating that no evidence existed that covid was built in a lab and in fact all evidence supported a natural event.

Of note, B7A redactions are found within the released emails. B7A redactions are explicitly limited to items that could interfere with criminal investigations:

FOIA Guide, 2004 Edition: Exemption 7(A)

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact [email protected] if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

On the bright side, he should be able to afford good defense lawyers with all the money he stands to make on his book and movie about himself.

 

[GT_EE78]

Both of these are excellent points. Judges aren't shy about overturning precedent if they deem it worthy. But it is (rightly so) a higher hurdle to clear. And second, think about this last year as a data point - first amendment rights were curtailed during the pandemic. The constitution doesn't say you have the right to peacefully assemble or practice your religion...only when given permission. Yet that's what happened. To me all of that is completely unlawful, but it won't surprise me one bit if those restrictions continue to happen. People will lean on the courts and 'the greater good'.

this comparison might not actually be a precedent if the other vaccine was approved versus these which are EUA.