Belief vs science
I was in the Moderna phase III clinical trial. 12 hours after the second jab, I had the predicted side effects: joint ache, mild fever, headache. Advil relieved the symptoms and they disappeared after another 24 hrs. This tells you the vaccine is working, not that it’s a bioweapon.
As of last year, more than 12 billion COVID-19 doses had been delivered world-wide. The reported deaths associated with a miniscule fraction of those vaccinations are just that—associations. Few, if any, have been shown to be caused by the vaccine and statistically, there is a predictable number of people who will fall ill or die within days of injection for reasons having nothing to do with the vaccine.
There is zero science behind claims that COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous. But the pernicious false equivalency between personal beliefs and scientific evidence leads to perverse and dangerous decisions that threaten us all. The more people infected, the higher probability that new vaccine-resistant variants will arise. The evidence is clear that vaccines reduce viral transmission.
There is ample scientific data online that falsifies all the claims of the Brevard County GOP leadership. These people deserve our scorn and contempt:
“Members of the Brevard County leadership committee adopted a resolution, calling on the governor to make the COVID-19 vaccines illegal. Other GOP chapters in Seminole, Lake, St. John’s, Santa Rosa, Hillsborough and Lee Counties have passed similar resolutions.
“There was heated discussion before the vote, and the majority believes the vaccine is very likely a biological weapon.
“The pharmaceutical companies committed crimes and pushed fraud on the public about the effectiveness of the vaccines and downplayed the risks and side effects, they argued.
“The Brevard Republican party’s controversial letter will be sent to DeSantis and other state leaders asking to outlaw the vaccines in the Sunshine State.”
County GOP: COVID-19 vaccine is a bioweapon
Joel
sorry to be a pest, but
“these people deserve our scorn and contempt” is not a scientific statement.
your belief in the science of Covid may be “scientific,” but my believing you would be “faith” either in “authority” or in you personally, or in “science” as religion [try try to understand what i am saying here..i am not saying that science is the same as religion. i am saying that or some of us…maybe most of us, our “belief” in “science” is the same as belief in religion.
for ordinary purposes i “believe in” science as much as you do..maybe more… but i get a little worried when people start demanding “scorn and contempt’ in the name of science, especially when it goes so far as to demand forced vaccination.
for one thing it feeds the scorn and contempt that a very large part of the voting public has for government and the arrogance of some “experts.”
Coberly:
Deserve is a choice. You can always applaud them for choice. His believe is scientific backed by evidence. Your faith still awaits proof. There is no demand in deserve.
I am noticing a lot of BS being scattered about in the news venue such as turning SS over to Wall Street and watch them tranche it in CDOs. Who in that tranche will die before they collect. Higher income tranches pay out less because they probably have better healthcare. Lower income tranches are riskier.
They do this with student loans in tranched CDOs called Slabs.
Think of the earnings for Wall Street!
Latest Social Security Proposal Would See Millions ‘Receive More, and No One Would Receive Less’
They are talking about massive cuts if they do nothing. We both know the US is monetarily sovereign.
Or increase the age before you can get it. We could do similar with Congress and raise their retirement to 80 since they did absolutely nothing other than threaten the public.
Warren has some thoughts out there too.
run
I am trying to think of something to say about Social Security that works better than what i have been saying for 15 years. I don’t understand what you are saying about my reply to joel.
run
i have no idea which of my faith’s still await proof. I think the meaning of the word faith includes “without proof.” I would say that if I have faith in my wife I don’t go around demanding she prove she is faithful to me.
Science and religion are concerned with entirely different aspects of human experience. I have a certain amount of faith in the truths of each. Science explicitly demands a lack of “faith” in assertions of “truth”, but in practice we won’t get very far trying to prove everything for ourselves. end up having faith in most of the propositions called science. but “doing science” means questioning science.
But when science stands up and demands we exterminate certain people in order to purify the race, I get a little skeptical. I think the germ of that skepticism is the subject domain we call religion. A person can get in as much trouble acting out his faith in bad religion as we can get ourselves in acting out bad science.
A famous teacher of religion suggested that believing other people deserved contempt was likely to lead to bad consequences… I am fairly well convinced he was right. I might even say I have proved it myself. But the subject can get fairly knotty. and if you don’t even understand what is being talked about, it is probably not a good idea to force you to understand. Which it seems to me to be what Joel is trying to do, though he may not understand that himself.
Coberly:
In the last few days there has been a flurry of articles on SS. One even suggesting Wall Street could do it better. That is what I am talking about. You still have the best plan out there. The only better way to do it and it was still the same was by Dean Baker. Baker’s plan was a slight variation of yours.
They deserve our scorn and contempt because they chose to pursue an agenda that contained claims that have been proven false. Faith and sciense are irrelevant here. Liars deserve our scorn and contempt every time.
@Rich,
D’accord. In this case, the lying was lying about science, and the potential harm was greater than just to the truth.
Rich
I guess the question is who do you meanby “they.” I have no doubt certain political leaders “deserve” to be contradicted strongly, and shown to be liars where they have been.
coberly:
You can have a conversation without attacking the author.
@run,
I don’t reply to Dale because he lied about me. He is lying here again. I have scorn and contempt for liars.
Joel:
I understand.
according to epistemology belief is one component of knowledge, the other being truth or factual nature of the item at hand.
faith is belief in an item that is not proven/provable truth.
I have no faith in your assertion that rna jabs are safe…. not knowledge.
I am also w/o trust in the assertion that rna jabs are effective
nor that they are indicate to any category of subject.
my standards hold consumer risk higher than producer risk,
land all assertions I see about testing hold low concern for the chance of releasing an unsuitable rna jab.
@paddy,
“I have no faith in your assertion that rna jabs are safe…. not knowledge.”
Your faith, or lack of faith is up to you. The data are out there, beginning with the phase I trials for both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines. The data demonstrate that they are safe. Hundreds of millions of people have had the mRNA vaccines. Where are their bodies?
“I am also w/o trust in the assertion that rna jabs are effective”
Your trust, or lack of trust, is up to you. If you were interested in facts and evidence on safety and efficacy, there are many reports out there. Here’s one, with links for further data:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/how-they-work.html
I have no faith in the claims about trials by hhs/fda/cdc.
Please link to design of experiment, and/or test risk analysis for those cdc administered trials
Media does not cover the specs of the experiments
paddy:
Having worked in pharma as well trials for things like bubble oxygenators, the rigors of fda/usda testing are formidable. It is true some commercial entities may short cut testing (which is always followed up on), skew documentation, or fail to maintain or improve capacity (thank the profit motive for this one) which I have seen happen. But then too, there is always that issue of funding entities which somehow the commercial entities play a role in funding or lack of funding.
I thought perhaps you may have a background in an area or endeavor which has some experience with both entities. Just to say “I do not trust” without offering supporting information. The magnitude of evidence against your comment is overwhelming.
If you do not wish to be vaccinated with a vaccine which has gone through a rapid test process due to a epidemic, don’t do it. If you have a faster way to provide a vaccine, please enlighten us. However if no vaccine as developed by the pharma and tested by the FDA/USDA meets your approval, do not go out into the public thinking your rights supersede everyone else’s safety. Your freedom does not extend that far.
You can maintain your individuality in the privacy of your home. You offer up nothing . . . other than quibbling.
@paddy,
Here’s the refereed published report for the original Moderna phase III trial that I participated in. It took less than 30 seconds to find on google. You can find the rest yourself the same way.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389
I’ve had my nose in the book for over sixty years and I still can’t figure it out: which is it, doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, faith? Or insanity … ?
@TB,
Insanity. Although sometimes there’s not much daylight between faith and insanity.
Ten Bears:
Meet Joel. He is good at healthcare, etc,
Didn’t answer my question, did a little dance
Contagious, apparently …
@Ten,
Do you have something to say about the, you know, topic of this post? Or are you just trying to make me the topic of the comments, like some others here?
Not at all … I posted a link to this. Your essay is exemplary
This would have been a great place to review what COVID vaccines are approved and which are under EUA. Moderna feels similar to Pfizer. Approved as Spikevax in January 2022, but does not seem to be available, while Moderna received an updated EUA this April, a month prior to the end of the COVID emergency in the USA. Hard to follow what status Moderna has as they have undated statements on the matter, including one that blandly says Spikevax is unavailable. So what is going on? Johnson & Johnson is off the market and possibly neither Pfizer nor Moderna has full FDA approval as actually offered to people here. Science-based protocols that are used to give us confidence that these substances are not too risky should be the heart of FDA approval process. Why in March and April 2023 were Pfizer and Moderna still getting updates to their EUAs? It smells rotten. Maybe it isn’t, but hundreds of millions of doses, two full approvals but actual vaccines in the arms in America are still under EUAs? Is that really the case here?
@Eric
I see no evidence that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are unavailable. They are the two COVID-19 vaccines approved for use in the US.
The FDA approval process is ponderous, and the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are being updated in response to the variants currently infecting people. That may have something to do with it.
Please post a link documenting that COVID-19 vaccines are unavailable. When I google “COVID-19 vaccines near me, I get five locations within two miles of my house.
@Eric,
Perhaps you’re referring to this: “the EUAs of the original monovalent mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna for the prevention of Covid-19 have been revoked, meaning they are no longer authorised for use in the US.”
That’s the monovalent vaccines. Bivalent vaccines are available, and the data suggest that they are superior in protecting from the current major variants.
“This decision was made to simplify the national vaccination schedule, which became confusing for individuals, including healthcare practitioners after multiple bivalent mRNA vaccines and the original monovalent vaccines were authorised for use by both vaccine developers. This led to a period of time when six mRNA vaccines, three from Pfizer/BioNTech and three from Moderna, were available in the US market. The EUAs for the bivalent original/Omicron BA.1 vaccines by both companies were revoked by the FDA in August 2022, after the BA.5 strain became dominant in the US, leaving four mRNA Covid-19 vaccines authorised for use.
“Since the bivalent original/Omicron BA.4/5 vaccines are already authorised for patients aged six months and older and demonstrate higher efficacy and cross-neutralisation against the original and variant strains, the FDA’s decision to utilise them for all doses makes sense. It may also lead to an increase in the percentage of people who have received an updated “booster” vaccine and encourage future booster campaigns as the virus continues to evolve. While this ends the revenue stream for Pfizer and Moderna’s first mRNA vaccines, it promotes the use of their updated bivalent vaccines. The use of these current vaccines is important from a public health perspective as they are likely to play a role in further containing the spread of Covid-19 and speeding up the pace of reaching herd immunity.”
What, exactly, “smells rotten” about this?
https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/comment/fda-euas-pfizer-biontech-moderna-covid-19-vaccines/#:~:text=As%20a%20result%2C%20the%20EUAs,for%20use%20in%20the%20US.
What “smells rotten” is that only 2 vaccines have full approval, and as far as I can tell neither is on the market, but other vaccines are available under EUA terms which is much more favorable to the manufacturers as to liability and also has lower side effects disclosure requirements. It is confusing, butI think this actually is the current state in the US. FDA approval is the high standard, and both Pfizer and Moderna have gotten those approvals, but the injection you might have today (I think) aren’t those vaccines. I can’t say that the EUA vaccines are unsafe, but if the person receiving has to do so under terms that they waive normal recourse to liability, that isn’t confidence building at all. Again, it is confusing.
@Eric,
I can see you’re confused. The two vaccines that had been approved were taken off the market because they were no longer as effective since the virus had evolved. The current vaccines that *are* available are more effective. Given the excellent safety record of the original mRNA vaccines, there’s little reason to doubt the safety of the current vaccines. Given what we know about the consequence of COVID-19 infection, these bivalent vaccines seem well worth the risk in order to protect yourself, your loved ones and your fellow citizens.
Thank you for an opinion lacking foundation. Stop . . .
Run
looking back it would seem to me as i understand the rules of indentation that your comment “opinion without foundation” is a reply to joel. i find this very unlikely.
but i get dizzy trying to follow the logic in these comments.
some tests hide the hypothesis. one set of test objects try to prove the object product is effective and safe.
an alternative test paradigm is to fail to accept the product is useless and that it is not dangerous.
two very different hypotheses
i see cdc trying to insist the vaccine proved ineffective and unsafe to hold eua.
e.g. in one rna jab arm the placebo group had zero deaths, while the rna jabbed group had one death, but it was decided the rna jab was not proven dangerous
like we saw on Monday night football last year
@paddy,
I see you’re confused, too. There is no evidence than any of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines are useless or dangerous. There is ample evidence to show that they are all useful and safe. To my knowledge, there’s no evidence that that the CDC found any of the mRNA vaccines “unsafe to hold eua.” Please post the evidence, if you know differently.
The original monovalent mRNA vaccines were taken off the market because they were superseded by bivalent mRNA vaccines that are more effective against current variants. I posted this above in response to Eric, together with a link for more information.