|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Aug 19, 2021 10:08:14 GMT -6
I hope you're for the idea of Pfizer/Moderna/J&J to be financially responsible for anyone suffering any ill effects from getting the vaccine. Since we're going to be forced to get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 19, 2021 11:01:17 GMT -6
I hope you're for the idea of Pfizer/Moderna/J&J to be financially responsible for anyone suffering any ill effects from getting the vaccine. Since we're going to be forced to get it. No, except in the same way product liability covers other drugs they manufacture. They are not now negligent in any way, but should the vaccine have extraordinary risk strict liability may apply. In any case, insurance certainly should cover the problems and government may subsidize that coverage or care for the uninsured. Safety evidence now is exceptionally good compared to many drugs on the market.
Like you are so fond of saying, you are always responsible for taking risks to some degree. The risks of vaccination FAR less than risk of the disease to the user. And there is very little risk to other people in any way. There is risk to others when you choose to be a voluntary host of a communicable disease and owe a duty to protect others in that case.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Aug 19, 2021 12:09:23 GMT -6
Not a bad idea to invest in treatment, but it will be expensive if needed and we also need expand hospital staffing and ICU capacity. If there is a cheap preventive measure that has to be done too in order to minimize the cost of treatment and keep it manageable.
While on the subject of treatment, any ideas why the USA isn't using Ivermectin? www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/indias-ivermectin-blackoutIt appears to have worked well in those areas of India where it was used vs. those areas where it wasn't. I would say it isn't being used because it's off patent and thus Big Pharma doesn't profit from it's usage. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 19, 2021 15:22:11 GMT -6
Not a bad idea to invest in treatment, but it will be expensive if needed and we also need expand hospital staffing and ICU capacity. If there is a cheap preventive measure that has to be done too in order to minimize the cost of treatment and keep it manageable.
While on the subject of treatment, any ideas why the USA isn't using Ivermectin? www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/indias-ivermectin-blackoutIt appears to have worked well in those areas of India where it was used vs. those areas where it wasn't. I would say it isn't being used because it's off patent and thus Big Pharma doesn't profit from it's usage. I doubt there is a conspiracy. Insurance carriers and physicians don't seem to me to care much about big pharma profits and if not patented there are manufacturers who sell drugs not any longer patented if there is a profit. If it is cheap and doctors want it it will be produced. If it is expensive to produce and not in the formulary of the insurance carriers the patent wouldn't matter. It could still be expensive.
I would guess the evidence is not as strong as alleged in zerohedge. The peer reviewed article is controversial and the material provided by zerohedge is very questionable. NOT in any way scientific study with controls and adjusting for other variables. Apart from comparing the zerohedge analysis as science similar to Galileo which is ridiculous zerohedge seems to overstate the evidence of efficacy.
There have been a number of trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients, although they haven’t met all the criteria that scientists typically deem necessary to generate strong evidence—that is, being randomized, well-controlled trials with hundreds or thousands of patients and findings published in a peer-reviewed journal.
The NIH, which last updated its advice on ivermectin in COVID-19 patients on February 11, 2021, states that most of the studies claiming to show benefits of ivermectin contain “incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias.”
FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans. Ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. If FDA approved for humans, physicians would have the choice to prescribe off label. They apparently don't buy into the drug.
It is commonly used for veterinary use, but the preparations available have many ingredients not tested for safety for humans, so people should definitely not use it in that form. Ivermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses).
So is the evidence cited in zerohedge for its use conclusive? It has been used in India early in infections for prophylaxis and to slow the spread of the earlier variants. Use experience with delta is relatively limited. The basic problem with the Indian experience is that the population is much different demographic. MUCH younger population so most cases are aysmptomatic and young people recover quickly. Our elderly population was slammed. They have little equivalent to our nursing home population. And after all India isn't really a total success story. Recently there is a surge. There is continuing problem
The zerohedge cite to the journal article supporting use has some problems. The article published in American Journal of Theraputics is controversial. Publication of that article elsewhere was pulled because of unsubstantiated claims made in it.
I don't see conspiracy here, but lack of safety data and controversial evidence of efficacy. Worth looking into which I believe is being done at FDA.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Aug 19, 2021 17:31:38 GMT -6
About the response I expected, but thanks for the response never the less. Basically trash any treatment that doesn't meet the one championed by the federal bureaucracy. Do you remember how the use of Bactrim was handled in treating AIDS? If you have forgotten let me remind you with quotes from the following 2017 Huffpost (a publication that is about as left-wing was left-wing gets). www.huffpost.com/entry/whitewashing-aids-history_b_4762295From the above article: "Dr. Anthony Fauci is rewriting history. He is doing so to disguise his shameful role in delaying promotion of an AIDS treatment that would have prevented tens of thousands of deaths in the first years of the epidemic. In my book, Body Counts, A Memoir of Politics, Sex, AIDS, and Survival, I recount how slow the federal government was in publicizing the use of Bactrim and other sulfa drugs to prevent PCP (the pneumonia that was then the leading killer of people with AIDS) in addition to its long-time and well-known use to treat PCP. I point to Dr. Fauci in particular, because he was, and remains today, the head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the head of the federal government’s AIDS research program. In 1987, pioneering AIDS activist Michael Callen begged Fauci for help in promoting the use of Bactrim as PCP prophylaxis and issuing interim guidelines urging physicians to prophylax those patients deemed at high risk for PCP. Had Fauci listened to people with AIDS and the clinicians treating them, and responded accordingly, he would have saved thousands of lives. In the two years between 1987, when Callen met with Fauci and 1989, when the guidelines were ultimately issued, nearly 17,000 people with AIDS suffocated from PCP. Most of these people might have lived had Fauci responded appropriately." So there you have it, what the Huffington Post wrote 4 years ago is playing-out again with Fauci and his buddies in the federal bureaucracy. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 19, 2021 18:59:07 GMT -6
About the response I expected, but thanks for the response never the less. Basically trash any treatment that doesn't meet the one championed by the federal bureaucracy. Better than trashing accepted science in favor of weakly evidence conspiracy theories. It's not trashing a treatment to ask for evidence and cliical trials before approving it for national public health use.
I'll trust the professionals and scientists in that agency, yes. Public safety does involve some bureaucracy but this is not a political agency. Both NIH and FDA deal in public safety where action taken is evidenced based and science based.
While there will certainly be cases where excepted science is proven wrong, or new discovery is not accepted immediately until there is better evidence, I'd prefer a process which makes that decision meet standards of scientific rigor to a bias in favor of conspiracy and mistrust of science.
Fauci has a record of making good calls. His record in AIDS is outstanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 19, 2021 19:26:15 GMT -6
Get vaccinated which we know is safe and prevents disease. Don't rely on treatment instead, treatment which requires early detection and action and is of unproven safety and efficacy.
I'll welcome treatment that is cheap and effective, don't get me wrong. Work on that, prove it works and is safe!
But, worrying about side effects that are not proven to exist and refusing a highly efficacious vaccine based on that speculative risk, while risking infection with proven high risk and counting on a cure that is not proven is a funny way to pursue certainty or safety.
Get vaccinated. In the rare case of infection risking a cure may then make sense!
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Aug 19, 2021 19:40:54 GMT -6
Fauci has a record of making good calls. His record in AIDS is outstanding.
You obviously didn't read, or didn't believe the article I quoted from. There are tens of thousands, or more AIDS patients and family members of AIDS who would disagree with you. As the failure on allowing, and out right discouraging the use of, a treatment for some of the co morbidities of AIDS goes a long way of explaining his current path of discouraging anything beyond a vaccination program. You shouldn't discount influence of money. As they always say, "follow the money". Most federal bureaucrats don't become rich working for the government. They cash-in after they leave and become lobbyists for the Pfzers and Modernas of the world. Doing the bidding of Bid Pharma while in government to secure your job after leaving government employment is just basic self interest. As for conspiracy theory, it's not a conspiracy theory if it's backed-up by facts. Provinces in India which used Ivermectin did better than those that didn't. That's hard data. As for studies and articles which counter what you want to be true, I'm sure you will continue to ignore and dismiss them. |
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Aug 19, 2021 19:55:27 GMT -6
Get vaccinated which we know is safe and prevents disease. Don't rely on treatment instead, treatment which requires early detection and action and is of unproven safety and efficacy. I'll welcome treatment that is cheap and effective, don't get me wrong. Work on that, prove it works and is safe! But, worrying about side effects that are not proven to exist and refusing a highly efficacious vaccine based on that speculative risk, while risking infection with proven high risk and counting on a cure that is not proven is a funny way to pursue certainty or safety. Get vaccinated. In the rare case of infection risking a cure may then make sense! Vaccines for Covid-19 seem to produce a short term surge of antibodies which decrease in time; hence, all the break through infections you are now seeing. Israel, being the most vaccinated country of earth for Covid-19 was the first to see this. www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-study-claims-major-drop-in-vaccine-protection-experts-dont-believe-it/As the title of the article implies, the experts didn't want to believe it at first. Now they have accepted it with their rush for booster shots. The problems are, how long will the booster shot be effective and what side effects might it have, especially if it needs to be followed-up with a series of booster shots say every 8 months. You're basically conducting real time experiments on your population. Guinea pigs don't always have the longest life expectancies. I'll probably get the booster shot when available, but I'm not going to feel real good about it. |
|
|
|
Post by bleadingcardwhite on Aug 19, 2021 21:22:07 GMT -6
What is “accepted science?”
|
|
|
|
Post by halftime on Aug 20, 2021 5:00:34 GMT -6
What is “accepted science?” Yeah isn't that great, my favorite however is "settled science", as-in "Climate Science is Settled". |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 20, 2021 5:25:13 GMT -6
What is “accepted science?” Science is a process. Discovery of new knowledge or new theory is tentative and is often not accepted broadly until controversy is settled by replication of results and extensive review by peers. Radical change or rejection of accepted science is possible. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 20, 2021 5:31:50 GMT -6
What is “accepted science?” Yeah isn't that great, my favorite however is "settled science", as-in "Climate Science is Settled". Quite a lot not settled very firmly... |
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Aug 20, 2021 6:18:45 GMT -6
Strike my earlier assertion that the Moderna vaccine was better than Pfizer.
On Thursday evening, the Washington Post published a report claiming that the Moderna coronavirus vaccine may be associated with a higher risk of myocarditis in younger adults than previously believed. The report relies on new data from a Canadian study that has yet to be released.
How much more dangerous is the Moderna jab than the Pfizer? Well, the preliminary data leaked to Washington Post show the risk of myocarditis might be as much as 2.5x higher for the Moderna jab.
Washington Post sources stressed that the new research hasn't yet been concluded, and that there's still plenty of work to be done before the FDA decides whether to attach another warning label to the Moderna jabs.
The investigation, which involves the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is focusing on Canadian data that suggests the Moderna vaccine may carry a higher risk for young people than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, especially for males below the age of 30 or so. The authorities also are scrutinizing data from the United States to try to determine whether there is evidence of an increased risk from Moderna in the U.S. population.
The myocarditis side effect is extremely rare and even if it is more likely in people receiving the Moderna vaccine, it probably is still very uncommon. Officials want to be careful not to cause alarm among the public, especially when officials are trying to persuade more people to be vaccinated amid a surge of cases fueled by the fast-moving delta variant.
So far, the FDA and CDC's official position is that the threat posed by COVID is far worse than any threat posed by vaccine side effects, and that all Americans over the age of 12 should get the jab. But as with any recent scientific judgment, there are others in the community who disagree - some who believe that the risk of side effects for young people might just outweigh the risk of harm from contracting COVID, which - as we have reviewed before - is virtually nil.
As I previously said, we are conducting live science with our population and Guinea Pigs don't always have the longest life expectancy.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Aug 20, 2021 6:33:17 GMT -6
What is “accepted science?” Science is a process. Based on the Biden Administration's recent performance in Afghanistan, I have severe doubts if they can adjust to developments in the scientific process. Their only defense of their debacle in Afghanistan seems to be it was Trump's plan and they had to carry it out. Disregard the fact Trump's plan was conditional based on what was happening on the ground and if the Taliban were keeping their end of the bargain. They were not, and the plan should have been modified or abandoned. Exactly what Trump would have done instead of moving blindly ahead like the Biden Administration did. Some posters on this website have claimed in the past the Trump Administration were a bunch of amateurs and once Biden took over we would see how professionals did things. Well they were obviously wrong. What a clown show we are watching in Afghanistan in what is now the a hostage drama involving 10,000 to 15,000 American citizens. Let's count the ways Biden Fucked-up. 1) Established a hard deadline for withdrawal that gave the Taliban at tactical advantage. 2) Failed to evacuate American citizens before withdrawing the bulk of American forces. 3) Choose a withdrawal deadline to coincide with the September 11th anniversary in the middle of the Taliban "fighting season". He should have always left in the winter when an offensive by the Taliban would have been nearly impossible. 4) Abandoned a defensive air force base, Bagram, where an evacuation should have been conducted. Instead attempting to use a commercial airport, Kabul, that isn't. I could go on, but you get the picture. So will the Biden Administration adjust to the science process? If the situation in Afghanistan is any guide, we are fucked. |
|
