11 ms·

That's…not how the FDA, or science, or medicine works. Antivaxers have no power whatsoever.

hannob 5y ago
From what I understand the vaccine wasn't taken off the market by the FDA or science. It was taken off the market by the company producing it, due to pressure from lawsuits and bullshit concerns about risks.
- wiz21c 5y ago
  I'm not antivax but if the company is sure its vaccine is safe, why should they fear lawsuits ?
  - johnny53169 5y ago
    They can be sure the vaccine is safe without being sure they would win in court.
    - inter_netuser 5y ago
      so they would lose a legal challenge to the product's safety....but it's safe? How does that follow? Liability is just a cost of doing business. You ever had D&O insurance? Right now in blockchain businesses some get quoted 10+% for coverage, i.e. 100k+ for 1 mil in coverage. Many simply forego the insurance because it's too expensive, and assume the risk. The product in question had too little upside to offset the liability, that's all.
      - torgoguys 5y ago
        > so they would lose a legal challenge to the product's safety....but it's safe? How does that follow? You convince a jury that it is unsafe. Happens all the time. There are many reasons this is easier than it should be. > The product in question had too little upside to offset the liability, that's all. The vaccine had a ton of upside...for those receiving it. Like most vaccines, it's not a hugely profitable endeavor for the company producing it, so it wasn't worth all of the baloney being thrown around in court.
        inter_netuser 5y ago
        How much would you pay out of pocket to get the vaccine? People do group buys for all sorts of nutraceticals, small molecules, and even some biologics.
        torgoguys 5y ago
        For me, at least $100, probably quite a bit more if I thought about it. However, I don't know that you could legally manufacture and sell/group buy such things. Nutraceuticals gets exceptions under the current, disastrous law but this wouldn't qualify.
        inter_netuser 5y ago
        If enough people pool in, you could underwrite your own clinical trial. Why not? People have pooled-in to try drugs that are in development and not generally available yet. I can recall numerous instances: pitolisant, rintalimod, hyper immune IG, etc Some went well, some were disasters, it’s the same as any other clinical trial.
  - nickthemagicman 5y ago
    Because the American Legal system is very imperfect.
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    Because in the US legal system that uses laypeople as judges ("juries"), lawsuits tend to be won by those who put on the best play for the juries, not by those who have the better arguments on their side like in Continental Europe. And to make matters worse, sometimes juries go for obscenely excessive damages against companies to "make a point" - just look at the McDonald's coffee case.
    - spicymaki 5y ago
      The McDonald’s coffee lawsuit was not frivolous[1][2]. The company served coffee at extremely dangerous temperatures. The claimant had severe third degree burns and only wanted McDonald’s to pay for her medical expenses. McDonald’s had a least 700 complaints about the problem before the lawsuit and did nothing until after the lawsuit. Please stop repeating corporate propaganda. [1] https://youtu.be/s_jaU5V9FUg https://youtu.be/s_jaU5V9FUg [2] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/...
      - torgoguys 5y ago
        >The company served coffee at extremely dangerous temperatures. Yes, it was frivolous to many peoples eyes, including mine. McDonald's still serves their coffee at the same temperatures today. They just changed the cups and added warnings at least according to the Wikipedia article on the case.
      - nate_meurer 5y ago
        No, what happened to Stella Liebeck was terrible, and it's right that she had the public's sympathy, however her coffee was not excessively hot by modern standards. Stella's coffee was served within the temperature range that was, and still is, recommended by professional coffee associations like SCAA and NCA [1]. The NCA recommends that coffee be held and served at around 180-185 deg F (~80-85 deg C), which is likely near the temperature at which Stella was burned. This is a perfectly reasonable service temperature, widely used by coffee shops, restaurants, and home brewing machines to this day. Stella Liebeck took her cup of coffee and squeezed it between her legs in order to fiddle with the lid. The result was tragic, but completely expected. If I spill a fresh cup of Starbucks coffee on my crotch today, I fully expect to sustain third-degree burns. So I take a little extra care with it until it has cooled to drinking temperature, which happens pretty quickly. Tea is generally even hotter. Any good tea shop will serve a pot of freshly boiled water, at least twenty degrees hotter than hot coffee. Spilling that on yourself is guaranteed to melt your skin. Great care is warranted. Again, what happened to Stella was terrible. She didn't deserve it, and she didn't deserve the hate she got afterward. But she did something really stupid. I sympathize, because I do stupid stuff all the time, and I have the scars to remind me. We're surrounded by extremely dangerous things that require great care to use properly. It's useful for coffee to be held and served hot, just as it's useful for knives to be sharp and cars to be able to reach highway speeds. There will inevitably be accidents, but making the world completely safe for people who use these things carelessly would mean depriving everyone of their proper use. 1 - https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee
  - _greim_ 5y ago
    If they completed the trials then they'd have some protection against major lawsuits. But no amount of legal protection would prevent low sales due to widespread public mistrust. Especially at a time when Lyme wasn't as rampant and terror-inducing as it is now.
- inter_netuser 5y ago
  You don't think vendors that sell products that can leave you maimed for the rest of your life, damage or eliminate entirely your earning potential, destroy your marital relations, and destroy future of your children should not be liable for injuries caused by their product? Really? You are against holding people liable for faulty products?
  - GuB-42 5y ago
    There wouldn't be a single car being sold if it was the case. The vaccine was approved by the FDA, they did their part making sure it was safe. 100% certainty is impossible, and people should not be held liable to that. Here, they pulled off their product off not because it was shown to be unsafe but because it was unprofitable. Due to the controversy, it was a tough sell, and lawsuits are costly no matter if you are right or wrong.
    - inter_netuser 5y ago
      This one is a real weird forum. Class action against car manufacturer, Toyota, because of 200-400 injuries from airbags? GOOD Class action against any medical product? BAD until proven otherwise. It’s like tainted blood transfusions, vioxx, fen-phen, thalidomide just never happened. I’m guessing the demographics is on the younger and still thinks they are made from steel.
      - matkoniecz 5y ago
        > Class action against any medical product? BAD until proven otherwise. You are arguing with strawman, noone said this.
  - hannob 5y ago
    I haven't said anything like that at all.
- tamrix 5y ago
  Antivax are people who don't want to take the vaccine. They're not against other people taking vaccines or the development of vaccines. You're likely misinformed.
  - markus92 5y ago
    Tell that to the antivaxers that attack vaccination sites and spread the propaganda.
    - imwillofficial 5y ago
      You say the word “propaganda” pretty loosely. I bet you also said “3 weeks to flatten the curve!”
      - eganist 5y ago
        > I bet you also said “3 weeks to flatten the curve!” The vaccines were working perfectly in that regard until we hit a wall of people unwilling to take them, which brought us in the US to where we are today when antivax lag hampered us from outrunning the delta variant. Iceland[1], with >70% vaccination rates, is seeing much different outcomes even in spite of record infections. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/iceland-covid-surge-vaccines/2021/08/14/bdd88d04-fabd-11eb-911c-524bc8b68f17_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/iceland-covid-su...
        inter_netuser 5y ago
        Iceland is reintroducing restrictions, possibly for years. Gibraltar at 99% vaccination rate is having an outbreak. If 99% vaccination rate will not achieve herd immunity, what will?
        imwillofficial 5y ago
        Stop with all your facts and numbers, people have a religion to follow.
pulse7 5y ago
Spreading false information on Facebook and capturing many followers is called "power of influence"...
computer23 5y ago
The Lyme vaccine is still FDA approved. The company selling the vaccine took it off the market for business reasons.

From what I understand the vaccine wasn't taken off the market by the FDA or science. It was taken off the market by the company producing it, due to pressure from lawsuits and bullshit concerns about risks.

wiz21c 5y ago
I'm not antivax but if the company is sure its vaccine is safe, why should they fear lawsuits ?
- johnny53169 5y ago
  They can be sure the vaccine is safe without being sure they would win in court.
  - inter_netuser 5y ago
    so they would lose a legal challenge to the product's safety....but it's safe? How does that follow? Liability is just a cost of doing business. You ever had D&O insurance? Right now in blockchain businesses some get quoted 10+% for coverage, i.e. 100k+ for 1 mil in coverage. Many simply forego the insurance because it's too expensive, and assume the risk. The product in question had too little upside to offset the liability, that's all.
    - torgoguys 5y ago
      > so they would lose a legal challenge to the product's safety....but it's safe? How does that follow? You convince a jury that it is unsafe. Happens all the time. There are many reasons this is easier than it should be. > The product in question had too little upside to offset the liability, that's all. The vaccine had a ton of upside...for those receiving it. Like most vaccines, it's not a hugely profitable endeavor for the company producing it, so it wasn't worth all of the baloney being thrown around in court.
      - inter_netuser 5y ago
        How much would you pay out of pocket to get the vaccine? People do group buys for all sorts of nutraceticals, small molecules, and even some biologics.
        torgoguys 5y ago
        For me, at least $100, probably quite a bit more if I thought about it. However, I don't know that you could legally manufacture and sell/group buy such things. Nutraceuticals gets exceptions under the current, disastrous law but this wouldn't qualify.
        inter_netuser 5y ago
        If enough people pool in, you could underwrite your own clinical trial. Why not? People have pooled-in to try drugs that are in development and not generally available yet. I can recall numerous instances: pitolisant, rintalimod, hyper immune IG, etc Some went well, some were disasters, it’s the same as any other clinical trial.
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  Because the American Legal system is very imperfect.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  Because in the US legal system that uses laypeople as judges ("juries"), lawsuits tend to be won by those who put on the best play for the juries, not by those who have the better arguments on their side like in Continental Europe. And to make matters worse, sometimes juries go for obscenely excessive damages against companies to "make a point" - just look at the McDonald's coffee case.
  - spicymaki 5y ago
    The McDonald’s coffee lawsuit was not frivolous[1][2]. The company served coffee at extremely dangerous temperatures. The claimant had severe third degree burns and only wanted McDonald’s to pay for her medical expenses. McDonald’s had a least 700 complaints about the problem before the lawsuit and did nothing until after the lawsuit. Please stop repeating corporate propaganda. [1] https://youtu.be/s_jaU5V9FUg https://youtu.be/s_jaU5V9FUg [2] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/...
    - torgoguys 5y ago
      >The company served coffee at extremely dangerous temperatures. Yes, it was frivolous to many peoples eyes, including mine. McDonald's still serves their coffee at the same temperatures today. They just changed the cups and added warnings at least according to the Wikipedia article on the case.
    - nate_meurer 5y ago
      No, what happened to Stella Liebeck was terrible, and it's right that she had the public's sympathy, however her coffee was not excessively hot by modern standards. Stella's coffee was served within the temperature range that was, and still is, recommended by professional coffee associations like SCAA and NCA [1]. The NCA recommends that coffee be held and served at around 180-185 deg F (~80-85 deg C), which is likely near the temperature at which Stella was burned. This is a perfectly reasonable service temperature, widely used by coffee shops, restaurants, and home brewing machines to this day. Stella Liebeck took her cup of coffee and squeezed it between her legs in order to fiddle with the lid. The result was tragic, but completely expected. If I spill a fresh cup of Starbucks coffee on my crotch today, I fully expect to sustain third-degree burns. So I take a little extra care with it until it has cooled to drinking temperature, which happens pretty quickly. Tea is generally even hotter. Any good tea shop will serve a pot of freshly boiled water, at least twenty degrees hotter than hot coffee. Spilling that on yourself is guaranteed to melt your skin. Great care is warranted. Again, what happened to Stella was terrible. She didn't deserve it, and she didn't deserve the hate she got afterward. But she did something really stupid. I sympathize, because I do stupid stuff all the time, and I have the scars to remind me. We're surrounded by extremely dangerous things that require great care to use properly. It's useful for coffee to be held and served hot, just as it's useful for knives to be sharp and cars to be able to reach highway speeds. There will inevitably be accidents, but making the world completely safe for people who use these things carelessly would mean depriving everyone of their proper use. 1 - https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee
- _greim_ 5y ago
  If they completed the trials then they'd have some protection against major lawsuits. But no amount of legal protection would prevent low sales due to widespread public mistrust. Especially at a time when Lyme wasn't as rampant and terror-inducing as it is now.
inter_netuser 5y ago
You don't think vendors that sell products that can leave you maimed for the rest of your life, damage or eliminate entirely your earning potential, destroy your marital relations, and destroy future of your children should not be liable for injuries caused by their product? Really? You are against holding people liable for faulty products?
- GuB-42 5y ago
  There wouldn't be a single car being sold if it was the case. The vaccine was approved by the FDA, they did their part making sure it was safe. 100% certainty is impossible, and people should not be held liable to that. Here, they pulled off their product off not because it was shown to be unsafe but because it was unprofitable. Due to the controversy, it was a tough sell, and lawsuits are costly no matter if you are right or wrong.
  - inter_netuser 5y ago
    This one is a real weird forum. Class action against car manufacturer, Toyota, because of 200-400 injuries from airbags? GOOD Class action against any medical product? BAD until proven otherwise. It’s like tainted blood transfusions, vioxx, fen-phen, thalidomide just never happened. I’m guessing the demographics is on the younger and still thinks they are made from steel.
    - matkoniecz 5y ago
      > Class action against any medical product? BAD until proven otherwise. You are arguing with strawman, noone said this.
- hannob 5y ago
  I haven't said anything like that at all.
tamrix 5y ago
Antivax are people who don't want to take the vaccine. They're not against other people taking vaccines or the development of vaccines. You're likely misinformed.
- markus92 5y ago
  Tell that to the antivaxers that attack vaccination sites and spread the propaganda.
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    You say the word “propaganda” pretty loosely. I bet you also said “3 weeks to flatten the curve!”
    - eganist 5y ago
      > I bet you also said “3 weeks to flatten the curve!” The vaccines were working perfectly in that regard until we hit a wall of people unwilling to take them, which brought us in the US to where we are today when antivax lag hampered us from outrunning the delta variant. Iceland[1], with >70% vaccination rates, is seeing much different outcomes even in spite of record infections. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/iceland-covid-surge-vaccines/2021/08/14/bdd88d04-fabd-11eb-911c-524bc8b68f17_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/iceland-covid-su...
      - inter_netuser 5y ago
        Iceland is reintroducing restrictions, possibly for years. Gibraltar at 99% vaccination rate is having an outbreak. If 99% vaccination rate will not achieve herd immunity, what will?
        imwillofficial 5y ago
        Stop with all your facts and numbers, people have a religion to follow.

pulse7 5y ago

Spreading false information on Facebook and capturing many followers is called "power of influence"...

computer23 5y ago

The Lyme vaccine is still FDA approved. The company selling the vaccine took it off the market for business reasons.