3 ms·

> you were wrong about the FDA advisory panel The FDA panel approved the childhood vaxx after skipping the FDA Science Advisory panel. Again, you are not spot

> you were wrong about the FDA advisory panel The FDA panel approved the childhood vaxx after skipping the FDA Science Advisory panel. Again, you are not spotting that the FDA circumvent the standard convening of the expert advisory board when the FDA advisory board approved it, see my original link [3] and the non-paywalled [4]. This is after the science advisory panel denied approval in September. This is corrupt and unscientific. > Just as you were wrong about the PCR test article, You are incorrect judging by the source. Quote from the original CDC policy source I remembered [1] instead of the secondary link I clearly didn't read well enough: "After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel ... CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses." Basically after December 31, 2021, the CDC will withdraw the emergency use authorization of the PCR test for COVID-19 testing. If I read this correctly the CDC said the old tests are no longer authorized because the do not differentiate well between the flu and COVID virus. It doesn't matter much to my argument since 400 pediatric deaths over 1.5 years is already very low, and as I said I am fine with just counting the all as covid deaths. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert... [2] https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/01/05/cdc-dodges-questions-on-why-the-fda-went-around-regular-procedure-to-boost-kids-n2601446 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/01/05/cdc-do... [3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/dangerous-push-to-give-boosters-to-teens-vacccine-covid-19-omicron-vaxx-requirement-mandate-11640107759 https://www.wsj.com/articles/dangerous-push-to-give-boosters... [4] https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/01/05/cdc-dodges-questions-on-why-the-fda-went-around-regular-procedure-to-boost-kids-n2601446 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/01/05/cdc-do...

lern_too_spel 5y ago
Now you're confusing yourself even further. There is only one advisory panel that meets before approving a medication. You're confusing approval of the booster for teenagers, which skipped that panel, with approval of the vaccine for kids, which did not. > If I read this correctly the CDC said You did not read this correctly, and the original link you posted explained why. > It doesn't matter much to my argument since 400 pediatric deaths over 1.5 years is already very low, This would be low if it happened without mitigations (or the first half year of that being before the disease had spread to most of America). It happened when mitigations severe enough to reduce flu deaths a hundredfold were in place. Do you not understand that?
- asabjorn 5y ago
  > You're confusing approval of the booster for teenagers, which skipped that panel, with approval of the vaccine for kids, which did not. Pediatrics covers teens. You clearly value a political process higher than the scientific method when you don’t distrust a vaccine approval entity that cut scientific advisory committees, cut required steps from the process, ignore extremely elevated myocarditis cases amongst boys etc In what seem politically instead of scientifically motivated you invent hypothesis such as “ Viruses, including the one that causes Covid, are an even greater risk of heart disease, including a more severe form called MIS-C that has resulted in amputations.” which the best science indicate is wrong for covid. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... You are both severely overestimating how much myocarditis covid gives and underestimating how irregular the vaxx myocarditis numbers are. These seem designed to fit your motivated reasoning that the mitigations worked as desired. > This would be low if it happened without mitigations (or the first half year of that being before the disease had spread to most of America). It happened when mitigations severe enough to reduce flu deaths a hundredfold were in place. Do you not understand that? According to this nature article by end of 2020 1/3 of all Americans had covid, so you are severely overestimating the effectiveness of the mitigations. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03914-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03914-4 You said "Covid still hundreds of times more lethal for children than the flu", so that means you claim we should expect 20k+ deaths without mitigations. Again, we had 400 pediatric deaths amongst the unvaccinated 73 million US kids over 1.5 years. Where do you get your excess mitigated pediatric deaths from in a population when 1/3 already had the virus by end of 2020, way before mid 2021 that the 400 deaths cover?
  - asabjorn 5y ago
    To add detail of the parents motivated reasoning. If by "Covid still hundreds of times more lethal for children than the flu" the parent means "flu as the one officially detected in 2020 instead of the around 200 that is normal" it's disingenuous as you need to compare to normal flu death numbers of time (we seem to be going back to normal official flu numbers). Unmitigated covid had pediatric deaths at the level of the normal flu, and the heuristic here is that people are not worried about the flu for healthy kids. If by "Covid still hundreds of times more lethal for children than the flu" the parent means relative to the normal flu, around 200, (s)he is claiming at least 20k+ deaths are mitigated despite us only seeing 400 pediatric covid deaths over 1.5 years after already by the end of 2020 1/3 of the american population had covid. The parent may be threading this needle by severely underestimating how many had covid. This kind of thinking is used to argue for it being a-ok that the FDA blatantly break vaccine approval process standards because of a pediatric severity that is manufactured. And this is for vaccines we know will be mandated or taken without informed consent, vaccines that have known to ruin lives or kill otherwise healthy children while it doesn't even work well for omicron. Maybe the parent is caught up in the mass transformation? A lot of otherwise smart people has been scared into this state.

lern_too_spel 5y ago

Now you're confusing yourself even further. There is only one advisory panel that meets before approving a medication. You're confusing approval of the booster for teenagers, which skipped that panel, with approval of the vaccine for kids, which did not. > If I read this correctly the CDC said You did not read this correctly, and the original link you posted explained why. > It doesn't matter much to my argument since 400 pediatric deaths over 1.5 years is already very low, This would be low if it happened without mitigations (or the first half year of that being before the disease had spread to most of America). It happened when mitigations severe enough to reduce flu deaths a hundredfold were in place. Do you not understand that?

asabjorn 5y ago
> You're confusing approval of the booster for teenagers, which skipped that panel, with approval of the vaccine for kids, which did not. Pediatrics covers teens. You clearly value a political process higher than the scientific method when you don’t distrust a vaccine approval entity that cut scientific advisory committees, cut required steps from the process, ignore extremely elevated myocarditis cases amongst boys etc In what seem politically instead of scientifically motivated you invent hypothesis such as “ Viruses, including the one that causes Covid, are an even greater risk of heart disease, including a more severe form called MIS-C that has resulted in amputations.” which the best science indicate is wrong for covid. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... You are both severely overestimating how much myocarditis covid gives and underestimating how irregular the vaxx myocarditis numbers are. These seem designed to fit your motivated reasoning that the mitigations worked as desired. > This would be low if it happened without mitigations (or the first half year of that being before the disease had spread to most of America). It happened when mitigations severe enough to reduce flu deaths a hundredfold were in place. Do you not understand that? According to this nature article by end of 2020 1/3 of all Americans had covid, so you are severely overestimating the effectiveness of the mitigations. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03914-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03914-4 You said "Covid still hundreds of times more lethal for children than the flu", so that means you claim we should expect 20k+ deaths without mitigations. Again, we had 400 pediatric deaths amongst the unvaccinated 73 million US kids over 1.5 years. Where do you get your excess mitigated pediatric deaths from in a population when 1/3 already had the virus by end of 2020, way before mid 2021 that the 400 deaths cover?
- asabjorn 5y ago
  To add detail of the parents motivated reasoning. If by "Covid still hundreds of times more lethal for children than the flu" the parent means "flu as the one officially detected in 2020 instead of the around 200 that is normal" it's disingenuous as you need to compare to normal flu death numbers of time (we seem to be going back to normal official flu numbers). Unmitigated covid had pediatric deaths at the level of the normal flu, and the heuristic here is that people are not worried about the flu for healthy kids. If by "Covid still hundreds of times more lethal for children than the flu" the parent means relative to the normal flu, around 200, (s)he is claiming at least 20k+ deaths are mitigated despite us only seeing 400 pediatric covid deaths over 1.5 years after already by the end of 2020 1/3 of the american population had covid. The parent may be threading this needle by severely underestimating how many had covid. This kind of thinking is used to argue for it being a-ok that the FDA blatantly break vaccine approval process standards because of a pediatric severity that is manufactured. And this is for vaccines we know will be mandated or taken without informed consent, vaccines that have known to ruin lives or kill otherwise healthy children while it doesn't even work well for omicron. Maybe the parent is caught up in the mass transformation? A lot of otherwise smart people has been scared into this state.