4 ms·

Eh, if this turns out to be the next Theranos, then we'll be glad that the government stopped our innocent civilians from being duped by this trickery. It's kin

Eh, if this turns out to be the next Theranos, then we'll be glad that the government stopped our innocent civilians from being duped by this trickery. It's kind of a double-edged sword.

georgewsinger 6y ago
Are you glad that 1M people have died from coronavirus? Or are you capable of accepting that there is a trade-off between preventing people from receiving life-saving vaccines in the name of protecting them (Type 2 errors) versus letting people die of toxic vaccines that are allowed onto the market (Type 1 errors)? In this context, it's very hard for Type 1 errors to exponentially compound. However, I have 1M coffins worth of evidence that Type 2 errors do exponentially compound. But more importantly: why do you think you have the right to tell another adult what they can and cannot do with their own body? No one is forcing you to take an experimental vaccine from a potential Theranos. So why stop others from taking that risk, especially when (i) allowing them to do so has positive effects on those who choose not to take the vaccine and (ii) preventing them from doing so potentially robs millions of people the chance to live, if only they had access to a vaccine quicker?
- CGamesPlay 6y ago
  This is what snake oil scams are. They make you think that it's a cure, when in reality it doesn't matter to the salesman whether it is or isn't. If the scammer happens upon the cure for COVID, that's lucky for them, but that isn't their goal. That's why we have regulatory agencies (who theoretically don't have a profit incentive to push false narratives) that control the trial periods. The unfortunate reality is that people who are affected by the (very real!) fear of becoming infected, disabled, or killed by the virus might make decisions about risks which they haven't been informed. In this case, for example, there may be a risk that there are downsides and absolutely no upside. That's what the testing periods are for. Please keep in mind I'm not talking about this specific instance. Here is looks like it's mostly political puffery and the vaccine is going through trials as it should.
anon9001 6y ago
What happens if I no longer trust our government to protect me from predatory business practices? I ask that, because I no longer trust the CDC after their series of recent scandals. Ironically, it's largely due to successful Russian efforts that I no longer know who to trust for advice on vaccines. From what we're hearing so far [1], it seems that POTUS will promise a vaccine is on its way just before the election, but then never deliver it. What I'm worried about, though, is that a vaccine will simply show up and start being rolled out by a compromised CDC, or FEMA, or Army, or whoever the administration can force to do it. [1] https://www.axios.com/trump-cdc-redfield-vaccine-d266121c-88f0-4b82-bd97-4a4125089f93.html https://www.axios.com/trump-cdc-redfield-vaccine-d266121c-88...
- r00fus 6y ago
  Maybe this is the October surprise? The rushed Russian vaccine that Trump’s friendly relationship with Putin helped to secure? I wouldn’t put it past them to try.
- didibus 6y ago
  > I no longer trust the CDC after their series of recent scandals Care to link? Feel I must have missed some news, as I'm not aware of any scandals around the CDC?
  - thedudeabides5 6y ago
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-cdc-says-americans-dont-have-to-wear-facemasks-because-of-coronavirus-2020-01-30 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-cdc-says-americans-don... https://www.foxnews.com/media/surgeon-general-explains-masks-public-coronavirus https://www.foxnews.com/media/surgeon-general-explains-masks...
    - didibus 6y ago
      I mean, if not making wild guesses is considered a big scandal, well so be it, but I find it quite exaggerated to call this a "scandal". There was no lie, no one was mislead, they weren't even wrong in a sense. At first there was no evidence that masks could prevent the spread, and then there was a shortage of masks for medical workers who needed them, and only later did the data show that asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission was possible, so there was now evidence to advice wearing a mask, even a non-surgical one. You could say they are to be blamed from making the default position the status quo. But the opposite is a harder default, how far do you go when nothing has been shown to be necessary or prevent anything yet? Like do you tell people to just go full on quarantine? To wash all their delivered packages and produce with soap? Like how far? And then if you tell them to do all that, and it later shows they arn't necessary and don't help prevent the spread? So in some way, the status quo does seem like a good default. Basically, the CDC just said: Go on with your daily life, don't panic, don't buy all medical equipment that the medical professionals need, and as the data arrives and shows evidence of what measures actually help to prevent the spread we will update our guidelines.
toast0 6y ago
Thalidomide or maybe the Cutter Labs Polio vaccine might be a better comparison than Theranos.

Eh, if this turns out to be the next Theranos, then we'll be glad that the government stopped our innocent civilians from being duped by this trickery. It's kind of a double-edged sword.

georgewsinger 6y ago

Are you glad that 1M people have died from coronavirus? Or are you capable of accepting that there is a trade-off between preventing people from receiving life-saving vaccines in the name of protecting them (Type 2 errors) versus letting people die of toxic vaccines that are allowed onto the market (Type 1 errors)? In this context, it's very hard for Type 1 errors to exponentially compound. However, I have 1M coffins worth of evidence that Type 2 errors do exponentially compound. But more importantly: why do you think you have the right to tell another adult what they can and cannot do with their own body? No one is forcing you to take an experimental vaccine from a potential Theranos. So why stop others from taking that risk, especially when (i) allowing them to do so has positive effects on those who choose not to take the vaccine and (ii) preventing them from doing so potentially robs millions of people the chance to live, if only they had access to a vaccine quicker?

CGamesPlay 6y ago
This is what snake oil scams are. They make you think that it's a cure, when in reality it doesn't matter to the salesman whether it is or isn't. If the scammer happens upon the cure for COVID, that's lucky for them, but that isn't their goal. That's why we have regulatory agencies (who theoretically don't have a profit incentive to push false narratives) that control the trial periods. The unfortunate reality is that people who are affected by the (very real!) fear of becoming infected, disabled, or killed by the virus might make decisions about risks which they haven't been informed. In this case, for example, there may be a risk that there are downsides and absolutely no upside. That's what the testing periods are for. Please keep in mind I'm not talking about this specific instance. Here is looks like it's mostly political puffery and the vaccine is going through trials as it should.

anon9001 6y ago

What happens if I no longer trust our government to protect me from predatory business practices? I ask that, because I no longer trust the CDC after their series of recent scandals. Ironically, it's largely due to successful Russian efforts that I no longer know who to trust for advice on vaccines. From what we're hearing so far [1], it seems that POTUS will promise a vaccine is on its way just before the election, but then never deliver it. What I'm worried about, though, is that a vaccine will simply show up and start being rolled out by a compromised CDC, or FEMA, or Army, or whoever the administration can force to do it. [1] https://www.axios.com/trump-cdc-redfield-vaccine-d266121c-88f0-4b82-bd97-4a4125089f93.html https://www.axios.com/trump-cdc-redfield-vaccine-d266121c-88...

r00fus 6y ago
Maybe this is the October surprise? The rushed Russian vaccine that Trump’s friendly relationship with Putin helped to secure? I wouldn’t put it past them to try.
didibus 6y ago
> I no longer trust the CDC after their series of recent scandals Care to link? Feel I must have missed some news, as I'm not aware of any scandals around the CDC?
- thedudeabides5 6y ago
  https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-cdc-says-americans-dont-have-to-wear-facemasks-because-of-coronavirus-2020-01-30 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-cdc-says-americans-don... https://www.foxnews.com/media/surgeon-general-explains-masks-public-coronavirus https://www.foxnews.com/media/surgeon-general-explains-masks...
  - didibus 6y ago
    I mean, if not making wild guesses is considered a big scandal, well so be it, but I find it quite exaggerated to call this a "scandal". There was no lie, no one was mislead, they weren't even wrong in a sense. At first there was no evidence that masks could prevent the spread, and then there was a shortage of masks for medical workers who needed them, and only later did the data show that asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission was possible, so there was now evidence to advice wearing a mask, even a non-surgical one. You could say they are to be blamed from making the default position the status quo. But the opposite is a harder default, how far do you go when nothing has been shown to be necessary or prevent anything yet? Like do you tell people to just go full on quarantine? To wash all their delivered packages and produce with soap? Like how far? And then if you tell them to do all that, and it later shows they arn't necessary and don't help prevent the spread? So in some way, the status quo does seem like a good default. Basically, the CDC just said: Go on with your daily life, don't panic, don't buy all medical equipment that the medical professionals need, and as the data arrives and shows evidence of what measures actually help to prevent the spread we will update our guidelines.

toast0 6y ago

Thalidomide or maybe the Cutter Labs Polio vaccine might be a better comparison than Theranos.