3 ms·

Compelled vaccination — forcing people to endure the pain of a needle and a few hours of feeling sore in their arm — is indeed completely different from locking

Compelled vaccination — forcing people to endure the pain of a needle and a few hours of feeling sore in their arm — is indeed completely different from locking people up in mental institutions for decades.

gretch 3y ago
This is a strawman - no one is complaining about the pain of the stab. It’s 100% the juice inside the syringe. This is the CDC site on the history of vaccine incidents: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.... Bad things can and do happen and it doesn’t do any good to pretend they don’t. Of course the reward is far worth the risk with modern science, but some people are still afraid of shit like this.
baremetal 3y ago
[flagged]
- sgath92 3y ago
  Vaccinations /= medical experimentation. Are you suggesting we as a species should still be being ravished by the scourge of smallpox?
- thebooktocome 3y ago
  The Nuremberg Code is about medical experimentation, not vaccination programs. The Nuremberg Code is not really relevant to modern medical ethics, or even to the history of medical ethics--its authors plagiarized [1] half of it from the 1931 Guidelines for Human Experimentation [2]. The relevant standard these days is the seventh revision of the Declaration of Helsinki, by the World Medical Association. No, the use of COVID-19 vaccines was not "experimental" [3]: > COVID-19 vaccines used in practice and involved in vaccination mandates are either authorized or fully approved by national regulatory authorities. Hence, they are not experimental and not part of research, and thus not covered by the Nuremberg Code. Taking approved medicines prescribed or used as a matter of regular medical or public health practice does not constitute an experiment or research in any common understandings of the terms. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3121268/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3121268/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_human_subject_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_human_subject_r... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10127050/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10127050/
  - bobsmooth 3y ago
    I like that the difference between war crime and perfectly acceptable is a rubber stamp. Not like the covid vaccine was in any way rushed.
    - thebooktocome 3y ago
      https://www.umms.org/coronavirus/covid-vaccine/testing https://www.umms.org/coronavirus/covid-vaccine/testing Calling this process a “rubber stamp” is disingenuous.
  - baremetal 3y ago
    Emergency use authorization is experimental. Otherwise it wouldn't be "emergency use".
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - thebooktocome 3y ago
      Here’s a simple metaphor to illustrate the difference, if we’re going to argue the meaning of terms of art by their dictionary definitions. When Sully Sullenberger pulled off the Miracle on the Hudson, that was an emergency use of the airplane’s water landing capability. It wasn’t experimental. Airbus designed a “ditching” button for the A320, they knew more or less what it would do, and the regulators (here the FAA) agreed that having such a capability was less risky than not having it, even if it wasn’t vetted and maintained at the same level of rigor as, e.g., the landing gear. Therefore something can be “emergency use” without being “experimental”, even if we stick to the simple common meaning of both terms.
      - baremetal 3y ago
        You are downplaying the role of an emergency use authorization. "Reasonable belief" sounds experimental to me. Otherwise they would've had all the information needed for FDA approval, it wouldn't have been predicated on belief, and it wouldn't have been labeled emergency use. Why are you so adverse to accepting the reality of the situation? "The process for issuing an EUA is different than an FDA approval. Under an EUA, the FDA authorizes uses of medical products based on a reasonable belief that the product may be effective based on the best evidence available at the time, without waiting for all the information that would be needed for an FDA approval."[1] [1] https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/understanding-regulatory-terminology-potential-preventative-and-therapeutic-drugs-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/understanding...

gretch 3y ago

This is a strawman - no one is complaining about the pain of the stab. It’s 100% the juice inside the syringe. This is the CDC site on the history of vaccine incidents: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.... Bad things can and do happen and it doesn’t do any good to pretend they don’t. Of course the reward is far worth the risk with modern science, but some people are still afraid of shit like this.

baremetal 3y ago

[flagged]

sgath92 3y ago
Vaccinations /= medical experimentation. Are you suggesting we as a species should still be being ravished by the scourge of smallpox?
thebooktocome 3y ago
The Nuremberg Code is about medical experimentation, not vaccination programs. The Nuremberg Code is not really relevant to modern medical ethics, or even to the history of medical ethics--its authors plagiarized [1] half of it from the 1931 Guidelines for Human Experimentation [2]. The relevant standard these days is the seventh revision of the Declaration of Helsinki, by the World Medical Association. No, the use of COVID-19 vaccines was not "experimental" [3]: > COVID-19 vaccines used in practice and involved in vaccination mandates are either authorized or fully approved by national regulatory authorities. Hence, they are not experimental and not part of research, and thus not covered by the Nuremberg Code. Taking approved medicines prescribed or used as a matter of regular medical or public health practice does not constitute an experiment or research in any common understandings of the terms. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3121268/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3121268/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_human_subject_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_human_subject_r... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10127050/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10127050/
- bobsmooth 3y ago
  I like that the difference between war crime and perfectly acceptable is a rubber stamp. Not like the covid vaccine was in any way rushed.
  - thebooktocome 3y ago
    https://www.umms.org/coronavirus/covid-vaccine/testing https://www.umms.org/coronavirus/covid-vaccine/testing Calling this process a “rubber stamp” is disingenuous.
- baremetal 3y ago
  Emergency use authorization is experimental. Otherwise it wouldn't be "emergency use".
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - thebooktocome 3y ago
    Here’s a simple metaphor to illustrate the difference, if we’re going to argue the meaning of terms of art by their dictionary definitions. When Sully Sullenberger pulled off the Miracle on the Hudson, that was an emergency use of the airplane’s water landing capability. It wasn’t experimental. Airbus designed a “ditching” button for the A320, they knew more or less what it would do, and the regulators (here the FAA) agreed that having such a capability was less risky than not having it, even if it wasn’t vetted and maintained at the same level of rigor as, e.g., the landing gear. Therefore something can be “emergency use” without being “experimental”, even if we stick to the simple common meaning of both terms.
    - baremetal 3y ago
      You are downplaying the role of an emergency use authorization. "Reasonable belief" sounds experimental to me. Otherwise they would've had all the information needed for FDA approval, it wouldn't have been predicated on belief, and it wouldn't have been labeled emergency use. Why are you so adverse to accepting the reality of the situation? "The process for issuing an EUA is different than an FDA approval. Under an EUA, the FDA authorizes uses of medical products based on a reasonable belief that the product may be effective based on the best evidence available at the time, without waiting for all the information that would be needed for an FDA approval."[1] [1] https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/understanding-regulatory-terminology-potential-preventative-and-therapeutic-drugs-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/understanding...