4 ms·

I didn't read the article and I'm sure it's full of contentious claims, but it's undeniable that the FDA has repeatedly, especially during COVID and more genera

I didn't read the article and I'm sure it's full of contentious claims, but it's undeniable that the FDA has repeatedly, especially during COVID and more generally in recent years, relied on a standard of research that is lesser than what would be considered a C+ lab report in any university chemistry lab in America. Relying solely on first person citation and abandoning peer review altogether by allowing the researchers themselves to be the reviewers has worked to distance scientists from politicians and from government. The political pull and profit seeking that plagues publication inevitably destroys the public view of government, science, and authority more generally. It should be no surprise that we'd see many writings critical of all three. All of that can be true without conspiracy. Literally anyone can lie and do it for profit all alone or with a friend. No conspiring required. Just a bit of common greed, and the knowledge that the average consumer is likely not trained in how to identify real or falsified research, and not trained in chemistry or any science for that matter, is quite enough to deceive the public. What we need is more scientists in politics, and fewer politicians in science.

gcanyon 2y ago
Aren't you skipping over the part where thousands of people were dying every day? When you say "relied on a standard of research that is lesser than what would be considered a C+ lab report in any university chemistry lab" do you mean "under normal circumstances" -- which didn't apply at the time? Or do you mean "even given the circumstances," in which case I'm going to need cites for where they cut corners in ways that were inappropriate given that thousands were dying daily.
- trimethylpurine 2y ago
  Not skipping. Acknowledged. And the fact remains that this erodes trust in science, and government. And that's especially true when the justification advertised isn't the one you've given. Instead it was a media effort to demonize scientists who gave their expert opinions if they were not in line with a particular narrative. Agreeable or not, right or wrong, moral or immoral that's not science. Disagreement and free speech are necessary for science. And when you remove that, whether your reasons are dire or not, breaks the scientific approach to information. And that works, as expected, to erode trust. For better or worse, that's the cost of attempting to control the conversation.
  - gcanyon 2y ago
    Okay so you’re going with even given the circumstances. That means you need to provide cites for how, at the time and given the information they had, their decision making was flawed. Further, it means you can't just jump back to free-speech absolutism. Please explain how, at the time and given the circumstances, their actions were flawed to the point of deserving the criticism you're dishing out.
    - trimethylpurine 2y ago
      I'm not saying they were right or wrong. I'm saying, avoidable or not, trust in science and the government should be a factor in deciding what's best. Seems to me like, if it was, we'd have fewer articles like this one. Start by discrediting theories with results that adhere to scientific rigor.
      - gcanyon 2y ago
        You said "relied on a standard of research that is lesser than what would be considered a C+ lab report in any university chemistry lab in America" Now you're refusing to back that up.
        trimethylpurine 2y ago
        I did. The reviewers of the Pfizer vaccine were the researchers. Every one an employee of Pfizer. That's an F grade in any chem lab course. At least any paper I would grade.
- cempaka 2y ago
  Were thousands of the children for whom the FDA issued emergency use authorizations for COVID vaccines dying from COVID every day?
  - gcanyon 2y ago
    Okay so you’re going with even given the circumstances. That means you need to provide cites for how, at the time and given the information they had, their decision making was flawed. Meaning, to your exact point, cite how they should have known at the time that the overall cost/benefit analysis for vaccinating children was negative.
    - cempaka 2y ago
      The only trials that they ran, in very small numbers of around a few thousand children, did not even attempt to demonstrate a clinical benefit to children, because SARS-CoV-2 was already such a mild illness for them it would have been impossible to discern one. So they simply measured an increase in "antibody levels" and called it a day. I think risk-benefit calls should be pretty easy to make when "no discernable benefit" is what's been put on the table. And yes, it was obviously a mistake at the time to issue an "emergency use authorization" for use of the vaccines in people for whom COVID was not even remotely an emergency.
      - gcanyon 2y ago
        You're not considering: - the risk of transmission by children to others. You can say that shouldn't be a factor, that (parents of) children should only have to consider the cost-benefit for their children directly. I'd reply that that's selfish. But we shouldn't have that debate since you didn't bother to bring it up in the first place. - the potential unknown long-term effects of covid on children who otherwise recovered. But in the end it comes down to: thousands of children died of covid-19. How many died from the vaccine? Do you understand why, statistically, it might be difficult to demonstrate a clear clinical benefit, while still confident that such a result would occur? Or put simply: are you substituting your judgement for that of medical researchers based on a full and clear understanding of the facts, which you simply interpret differently? Or are you speculating based on an armchair understanding of the situation?

gcanyon 2y ago

Aren't you skipping over the part where thousands of people were dying every day? When you say "relied on a standard of research that is lesser than what would be considered a C+ lab report in any university chemistry lab" do you mean "under normal circumstances" -- which didn't apply at the time? Or do you mean "even given the circumstances," in which case I'm going to need cites for where they cut corners in ways that were inappropriate given that thousands were dying daily.

trimethylpurine 2y ago
Not skipping. Acknowledged. And the fact remains that this erodes trust in science, and government. And that's especially true when the justification advertised isn't the one you've given. Instead it was a media effort to demonize scientists who gave their expert opinions if they were not in line with a particular narrative. Agreeable or not, right or wrong, moral or immoral that's not science. Disagreement and free speech are necessary for science. And when you remove that, whether your reasons are dire or not, breaks the scientific approach to information. And that works, as expected, to erode trust. For better or worse, that's the cost of attempting to control the conversation.
- gcanyon 2y ago
  Okay so you’re going with even given the circumstances. That means you need to provide cites for how, at the time and given the information they had, their decision making was flawed. Further, it means you can't just jump back to free-speech absolutism. Please explain how, at the time and given the circumstances, their actions were flawed to the point of deserving the criticism you're dishing out.
  - trimethylpurine 2y ago
    I'm not saying they were right or wrong. I'm saying, avoidable or not, trust in science and the government should be a factor in deciding what's best. Seems to me like, if it was, we'd have fewer articles like this one. Start by discrediting theories with results that adhere to scientific rigor.
    - gcanyon 2y ago
      You said "relied on a standard of research that is lesser than what would be considered a C+ lab report in any university chemistry lab in America" Now you're refusing to back that up.
      - trimethylpurine 2y ago
        I did. The reviewers of the Pfizer vaccine were the researchers. Every one an employee of Pfizer. That's an F grade in any chem lab course. At least any paper I would grade.
cempaka 2y ago
Were thousands of the children for whom the FDA issued emergency use authorizations for COVID vaccines dying from COVID every day?
- gcanyon 2y ago
  Okay so you’re going with even given the circumstances. That means you need to provide cites for how, at the time and given the information they had, their decision making was flawed. Meaning, to your exact point, cite how they should have known at the time that the overall cost/benefit analysis for vaccinating children was negative.
  - cempaka 2y ago
    The only trials that they ran, in very small numbers of around a few thousand children, did not even attempt to demonstrate a clinical benefit to children, because SARS-CoV-2 was already such a mild illness for them it would have been impossible to discern one. So they simply measured an increase in "antibody levels" and called it a day. I think risk-benefit calls should be pretty easy to make when "no discernable benefit" is what's been put on the table. And yes, it was obviously a mistake at the time to issue an "emergency use authorization" for use of the vaccines in people for whom COVID was not even remotely an emergency.
    - gcanyon 2y ago
      You're not considering: - the risk of transmission by children to others. You can say that shouldn't be a factor, that (parents of) children should only have to consider the cost-benefit for their children directly. I'd reply that that's selfish. But we shouldn't have that debate since you didn't bother to bring it up in the first place. - the potential unknown long-term effects of covid on children who otherwise recovered. But in the end it comes down to: thousands of children died of covid-19. How many died from the vaccine? Do you understand why, statistically, it might be difficult to demonstrate a clear clinical benefit, while still confident that such a result would occur? Or put simply: are you substituting your judgement for that of medical researchers based on a full and clear understanding of the facts, which you simply interpret differently? Or are you speculating based on an armchair understanding of the situation?