Vaccine

EvilGoalie 21 said:
Clinical trails are evaluated within agencies and the results are made available to the public. There are search engines to find them. They are not considered a journal publication per se; there is not publisher, there is no paywall, you don't find them on preprint servers.. Most of the time clinical trails will not generate the type of findings that are of interest to the broader scientific community; they are just descriptive. Sometimes the results of clinical trails, if basic scientific information or new technological progress, comes out of them they are submitted for publication. In that case they are evaluated will be evaluated through the traditional academic peer review process. But that is in addition to, not in lieu of, regulatory review.
Click to expand...
I understand that, IMO this response just sounds like a giant rationalization. How'd that work out for the J&J vaccine? I'm a "proof is in the pudding", "show me, not tell me", "real world over academic world" etc. I'm a business guy and your a science guy (I think), so we're often not going to have the same perspective. Pluses and minuses to both perspectives I guess. I'll use my "compelling" argument again. I don't think the vaccines are effective enough to justify them being mandated and having people lose their jobs. The results in the real world have proven that unequivocally as the virus has spread unabated among the unvaccinated.

For children, the equation is a little different. Healthy children have less than miniscule risk from serious consequences from the virus. However, long term consequences, if any, are unknown from this virus in the U12 age group, as are the long term consequences, if any, of the vaccine. This is not lost on parents based on the fact that 5-12 is only 30% vaccinated and 6mo-4 is only 1 1/2%. This "appeal to authority" is not as strong with the general public as it is with academic types. It has become significantly less strong the last 2 years due to the lack of credibility we seen from the experts.
 
watfly said:
I understand that, IMO this response just sounds like a giant rationalization. How'd that work out for the J&J vaccine? I'm a "proof is in the pudding", "show me, not tell me", "real world over academic world" etc. I'm a business guy and your a science guy (I think), so we're often not going to have the same perspective. Pluses and minuses to both perspectives I guess. I'll use my "compelling" argument again. I don't think the vaccines are effective enough to justify them being mandated and having people lose their jobs. The results in the real world have proven that unequivocally as the virus has spread unabated among the unvaccinated.

For children, the equation is a little different. Healthy children have less than miniscule risk from serious consequences from the virus. However, long term consequences, if any, are unknown from this virus in the U12 age group, as are the long term consequences, if any, of the vaccine. This is not lost on parents based on the fact that 5-12 is only 30% vaccinated and 6mo-4 is only 1 1/2%. This "appeal to authority" is not as strong with the general public as it is with academic types. It has become significantly less strong the last 2 years due to the lack of credibility we seen from the experts.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Like you said, you have your rationalization and your sense of risk assessment. I have mine. They are different. That's fine. What I was responding to was the thing about peer review for clinical trials. That's not the way it works, so it's not a valid point. That's the only thing. The rest is you.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Like you said, you have your rationalization and your sense of risk assessment. I have mine. They are different. That's fine. What I was responding to was the thing about peer review for clinical trials. That's not the way it works, so it's not a valid point. That's the only thing. The rest is you.
Click to expand...
Thanks. If that's the case it sounds like peer review should be added to the process, it might restore some pulbic faith in FDA decisions and CDC recommendations. They certainly need to restore their credibility.
 
watfly said:
I understand that, IMO this response just sounds like a giant rationalization. How'd that work out for the J&J vaccine? I'm a "proof is in the pudding", "show me, not tell me", "real world over academic world" etc. I'm a business guy and your a science guy (I think), so we're often not going to have the same perspective. Pluses and minuses to both perspectives I guess. I'll use my "compelling" argument again. I don't think the vaccines are effective enough to justify them being mandated and having people lose their jobs. The results in the real world have proven that unequivocally as the virus has spread unabated among the unvaccinated.

For children, the equation is a little different. Healthy children have less than miniscule risk from serious consequences from the virus. However, long term consequences, if any, are unknown from this virus in the U12 age group, as are the long term consequences, if any, of the vaccine. This is not lost on parents based on the fact that 5-12 is only 30% vaccinated and 6mo-4 is only 1 1/2%. This "appeal to authority" is not as strong with the general public as it is with academic types. It has become significantly less strong the last 2 years due to the lack of credibility we seen from the experts.
Click to expand...
How would you quantify "less than miniscule"?
 
watfly said:
Thanks. If that's the case it sounds like peer review should be added to the process, it might restore some public faith in FDA decisions and CDC recommendations. They certainly need to restore their credibility.
Click to expand...

Peer review generally works, but can be hit and miss. The public should not assume that peer review necessarily means all the data elements and underlying statistics have been gone through with a fine tooth comb. Evaluators will have different backgrouds, expertises, amount of time to attend to it, etc. Basically it is not their job to make sure it's right, it is a service item. In many cases they may only look for obvious flaws, crap interpretations, etc. And some journals are better than others; with a few exceptions (Nature, Science) the public is unlikely to know which is which. Some journals even let you specify who you want to review the paper. Also, the underlying data for some vaccine clinical trials does get submitted for peer review given the current interest in vaccine development. The thing is that in the info wars "peer review" is largely being appended as a value metaphor to influence perception rather than a term with specific meaning. It's in there with "herd immunity", "immune escape", etc.
 
watfly said:
Just FYI, in the first month of 0-4 vaccine availability only 1.5% of this population has been vaccinated. We're still only at 30% for 5-11 vaccinations. The public seems to understand the cost benefit far better than our government health agencies do.

Just FYI when a study is posted that one side doesn't like often the comment is "its not peer reviewed". Did you know the results from the Pfizer and Moderna study for 0-4 vaxes was considered preliminary and not peer reviewed and yet the FDA still approved its use. That doesn't pass the smell test.
Click to expand...
Post a link to your claim of inadequate review.

So far, your only reputable link is the Yale one, and it does not appear to say what you are saying. My first impression is that the review system used by FDA is different from the review system used by NEJM. That makes sense. One makes actual medical policy, and the other does not. Their systems ought to be different. But it’s no scandal. It’s just a statement that organization A uses a different structure than organization B.
 
dad4 said:
Post a link to your claim of inadequate review.

So far, your only reputable link is the Yale one, and it does not appear to say what you are saying. My first impression is that the review system used by FDA is different from the review system used by NEJM. That makes sense. One makes actual medical policy, and the other does not. Their systems ought to be different. But it’s no scandal. It’s just a statement that organization A uses a different structure than organization B.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Academic review is not a good mechanism for vetting vaccines, drugs, stuff like that. Regulatory agencies need to vested with regulatory authority, ultimately placed under the oversight of elected officials.

The rejoinder, of course, will be that those agencies have lost the confidence of a segment of the public. Other than battling for plastic junior high debate trophies, that it perhaps the central theme of the thread as far as I can tell. A spectrum of reasons has been presented and will no doubt be cycled through again, ranging from reasonable objections to evil cabals and the lizard people. There has also been an unprecedented information attack, with one side fighting with the tools of modern disinformation and one side just sort of taking it. All that filters down. The whole point is to shade perception. A legitimate question being asked is how fixable it is. I have no idea and probably neither does anybody else. But the people that make the recommendations to decision makers are already bringing in political scientists, pandemic psychologists, other voices that are not from a purely epidemiological standpoint. Basically, there will be stratified human elements incorporated into the modelling.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Agreed. Academic review is not a good mechanism for vetting vaccines, drugs, stuff like that. Regulatory agencies need to vested with regulatory authority, ultimately placed under the oversight of elected officials.

The rejoinder, of course, will be that those agencies have lost the confidence of a segment of the public. Other than battling for plastic junior high debate trophies, that it perhaps the central theme of the thread as far as I can tell. A spectrum of reasons has been presented and will no doubt be cycled through again, ranging from reasonable objections to evil cabals and the lizard people. There has also been an unprecedented information attack, with one side fighting with the tools of modern disinformation and one side just sort of taking it. All that filters down. The whole point is to shade perception. A legitimate question being asked is how fixable it is. I have no idea and probably neither does anybody else. But the people that make the recommendations to decision makers are already bringing in political scientists, pandemic psychologists, other voices that are not from a purely epidemiological standpoint. Basically, there will be stratified human elements incorporated into the modelling.
Click to expand...
plenty of dollars available to try and make processes legit by hiring people with pedigrees- happens in so many industries. Pharma and oil/gas are pretty adept at it.
 
Happened again said:
plenty of dollars available to try and make processes legit by hiring people with pedigrees- happens in so many industries. Pharma and oil/gas are pretty adept at it.
Click to expand...

For the people I'm referring to, the pay is OK. It's a government job. Many of them could easily make more in the private sector. They will be highly trained. Many, but not all of course, are going to be very good at what they do. I wondered for awhile why the disinformation campaigns didn't go after these people, the actual science class, systematically. Doxx and hound them instead of going after political "squirrels" like Fauci. It would be easy to do and I'm pretty sure you could bring the whole regulatory process down pretty quickly that way. It seems that is not the objective, however. I read where the best way to deligitimize institutions are to tether them to a few public figures, then paint those targets with undesirable human traits, incompetence, corruption. Transference does the rest. Then keep sowing the field and see what grows of its own accord.
 
Kicker 2.0 said:
Is that not a factual statement?
Click to expand...
News reporters tell us who changed their position on something. Editorial writers describe it as a flip flop.

It matters because, if I read an article about something, I learn more if it covers the whole topic.

What is the point of finding the angriest two or three people at an agency and choosing four anonymous quotes which suit a pre-established narrative?
 
Biden COVID czar, Dr. Ashish Jha voices support for LA bringing back indoor mask mandate

"My view on this has been very clear, which is local jurisdictions, cities, counties, states should make decisions about mask mandates because communities are different and their patterns of transmission are different," Jha explained.

Jha said that it's "really important to remind people of the science, the public health science and the public health science is very clear."
 
dad4 said:
What is the point of finding the angriest two or three people at an agency and choosing four anonymous quotes which suit a pre-established narrative?
Click to expand...
Hilarious. As if any of the major media outlets don't have a pre-established narrative on this. The question we should ask is, are the facts correct? Are the CDC and NIH seeing an unusual loss of employees? The rest of it falls under investigative journalism. Other outlets with different pre-established narratives will not be interested in this story because their narratives will not be supported.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
Hilarious. As if any of the major media outlets don't have a pre-established narrative on this. The question we should ask is, are the facts correct? Are the CDC and NIH seeing an unusual loss of employees? The rest of it falls under investigative journalism. Other outlets with different pre-established narratives will not be interested in this story because their narratives will not be supported.
Click to expand...
And, when the NYT ran articles that underplayed the link between covid and obesity, I was willing to say so.

Can you say the same? Did you point out the faults in your preferred narrative? Or are you purely a member of the cheer squad?
 
dad4 said:
And, when the NYT ran articles that underplayed the link between covid and obesity, I was willing to say so.

Can you say the same? Did you point out the faults in your preferred narrative? Or are you purely a member of the cheer squad?
Click to expand...
I'm not making a judgment on the article. It's information, and I understand the source. If the facts are correct, it's significant. Are you aware of any facts that got wrong? That would be useful to me. That you are butt-hurt because they disrespected Fauci doesn't move me.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
Hilarious. As if any of the major media outlets don't have a pre-established narrative on this. The question we should ask is, are the facts correct? Are the CDC and NIH seeing an unusual loss of employees? The rest of it falls under investigative journalism. Other outlets with different pre-established narratives will not be interested in this story because their narratives will not be supported.
Click to expand...
1658076342083.png
 
dad4 said:
News reporters tell us who changed their position on something. Editorial writers describe it as a flip flop.

It matters because, if I read an article about something, I learn more if it covers the whole topic.

What is the point of finding the angriest two or three people at an agency and choosing four anonymous quotes which suit a pre-established narrative?
Click to expand...
He is on record flip flopping. You just refuse to see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top