Those are not valid reasons, he can choose which precedent to set.
-take a measure that is widely seen as an abuse of his power to censor criticism.
-take a measure that is controversial but with a solid explanation that justifies it.
Those are his only two choices at the moment, if he wanted to avoid setting a precedent at all (as if this was such an important priority as you think it is) then he would have simply appointed the nominations. But since he considered more important not to include people that criticize what he wants to use it is easily seen how his first option is the worst precedent, since it is much more easier to abuse in the future.
Him choosing this first option means the second one is impossible for him. That justifies his drop of popularity completely, since he must be then inadequate for the job or actually intends to use his authority to restrict academic freedom.
Once again you put out what you think may be valid reasons to not appoint candidates that the council consider perfectly adequate. Those reasons are irrelevant because the Primer Minister has not used them, that can be because he knows they are terribly weak and can be defeated easily or because he does think the researchers are balanced and correct, just not in the direction he wants them to be. The important point is that he is offering no explanation at all, so he has to accept the consequences of not doing it and let people assume the worst reason is true.
Why don't you discuss the concrete example already brought up, to explain why it is proper to shut down that application?
Sure, bring the reference to the full research proposal, the reasons for which the council criticize it and why the council still recommended against it, as happens frequently the devil is in the details. There are plenty of possible reasons why an overly generalized description of a project do not include the parts where it is not justified. Even the worst possible projects can be presented as positive if you just skip the bad parts.
The council do not need to "up their game" with better arguments because Suga has not put anything on the table, the council position right now is that he is acting with the sole purpose of restricting academic freedom, Suga refuse to defend his position, the council was not refuted logically, so why would they change their arguments? they got him by default.
Again, what you think Suga could use to justify himself is completely irrelevant as long as he doesn't, you know, use it in the first place.
Your example is precisely why an academic discussion has to be done, it should be easy to prove a professor with demonstrably wrong views on history cannot continue in his position. If the people in charge of that decision think is something that should be done then they can put the tiny amount of effort to justify their decision.
In this case the justification is quite more difficult to do, because the opinion of the academic community in general is that the nominees are not just subversive researchers without any base for their criticism, but if Suga thinks it is something so important that should set a precedent, he of course thinks he is justified in doing it. Or not, and he will have to take political damage for doing something not justified.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
He used a big chunk of his political funds just to silence dissidence from the Scientific Council, and now has the whole academic community against him for no real reason. It is hard to see how he can do better when he inevitably needs to put in order something unpopular. His approach of doing things that are seem as authoritarian without offering any justification is going to cost him more and more until he runs out.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
1.- The one that choose the argument of setting a precedent was you, not me, my point is only that this makes no sense because he already did set one, and a much worse than having to explain a decision that can easily be interpreted as an abuse against academic freedom, which is doing it without any valid explanation. That is like saying someone wanted to avoid accidental fires in his kitchen so he blows up the whole thing so there is nothing left to burn.
2.- The drop is foreseeable and desirable, politicians perceived as abusing their power should have political consequences, especially when doing things without any obvious justification and without giving explanations.
3.- Being prejudicial is the only option when the PM does something against an organism made specifically to control their power. Just doing it looks terribly bad, but not giving a justification is much worse. People are entitled and justified then to take it as something negative, it is very likely something negative after all.
4.- Every single piece of research proposal can be constructed as dual-purpose very easily, if the council did a blanked ban nothing would be ever researched with government funds at any university or research institute (and obviously scientist would not support the protests against the PM, they would all be out of their jobs thanks to the council). Your comment just betray a deep ignorance about the real considerations of dual-purpose technology development. It is not as easy as you think it is.
5.- All the reasons you make could be good justifications, maybe, or they could be terribly low quality arguments easily defeated by the council experts. The only way we could know is if Suga used them (or better ones) to justify his decision. Once again, you give many reasons why he could be justified, but not even one why he should not justify his action and expect no consequences.
Saying his decision is "not clearly" against the interest of the people is precisely why it should be justified, to make it clear (If someone tells you to drink something that looks dangerous, and he tells you "it is not clear if this will poison you" you would be perfectly justified in rejecting it). Or else let the public doubt it and consume the political funds he got and later fail to implement anything else that may be unpopular.
Look at it this way. If in a company something wrong was discovered thanks to whistleblowers, someone has to stop doing it but the rest of the company is happy it stopped. Then a new management comes and fires every single one of the whistleblowers and nobody else, it would look really bad. The firing could be justified by many perfectly valid reasons, but the obvious one is a bad one. The new management team, if it was competent, would justify their reasons properly and avoid negative consequences, but if it says "we fired them because we can" it would not be surprising nor unjustified that everybody else think that they intend to do wrong things and are pre-emptively taking care of the opposition to do it without hindrance, or that they are terribly incompetent and better if out of these jobs.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
So the abortions pushed by Gates' dad decades ago are now making his son richer.
Not at all, its unrelated completely and even if they ware it would be the opposite result, Bill gates is not getting richer by investing in vaccines, that is a mistake from people that think "investment" can only mean personal economic gain.
On the topic, new cell lines development is something gaining a lot of momentum now, this is precisely because the usual cells have become a gold standard and the banks that produce and maintain the cell lines charge a big premium for any kind of commercial use. Any researcher that want to publish a scientific report still have to pay to get the cells, but if a good medical product is found and it makes sense to spend the money, time and effort to do clinical trials and use it commercially now they have to pay an extra commercial fee for each dose. That would mean that even if the research is done in Japan by a Japanese scientist and put sold later by a Japanese company a big chunk of the money would still need to go to the occidental owners of the cell line.
That is why many national governments and institutes are now trying to develop their own cells and test them exhaustively so they can become their own standards.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
First, precedents are extremely long-term things, so to leap into setting one to avoid short-term political pressure is doing everyone a disservice.
Which is why it would have been better to accept the nominations. In comparison giving the obviously needed justification to avoid the debacle that is happening right now is a much less important one.
Of course he deserves the drop in popularity, this measure was obviously going to have that cost if not made with proper justification, so either this is the price he was willing to pay (maybe because of hidden deals?) or he is deeply unprepared for the job he is supposed to do and did not predict this outcome.
His decision of not offering any explanation causes third part observed to understand there is no such thing (different from just the obviously invalid one). A valid, good explanation should be a huge remedy to this, but since he does not have such an explanation (not based on just having the power to silence criticism).
Appoint or confirm is irrelevant for this, he did not do the selection, the people being selected are not the ones that have to justify the selection ether. And the possibility of a veto is not the problem, using it in an apparently irrational way to defeat the whole purpose of the council is what is costing the PM.
And it is their role to be rational and scientific about such objections, rather than making objections without considering realities. For example, the law explicitly says in its Preamble:
Sure, and that would have a good argument, if he was to use it and specially defend it against the opinion of the council (that obviously is opposite) that would be the academic discussion minimally expected from such a precedent setting decision. Both the council and the members are in the opinion that their work is contributing to the welfare of human society. In the modern word having a strict control of dual-purpose technologies, the same as ethical treatment of human and animal experimentation or taking care of not destroying biodiversity by genetically modified organisms is a huge part of the guidance that science needs to actually improve humans lives.
Having a coronavirus vaccine in a couple months would be a very nice development right? but is that enough to simply ignore ethical considerations and force test it in humans including causing the death of some of the subjects? Having proper ethical control of the science is much more important than any specific advancement, Japan is now trying to go back a few decades of progress.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
A question that needs to be asked here is how much legal obligation is there for Suga to justify his decision, at least at this point in the game.
This is an action that is costing popularity to the prime minister, at this point is developing into a snowball, the not justifying the decision is what is making the cost so high. It makes absolutely no sense to spend so much political capital just to "not send a precedent", specially because rejecting the nominations is the one that is setting a precedence. Saying that a justification is not necessary is ignoring a terribly clear political reality. Popularity is extremely expensive, and he just used a lot of it just to be able to reject scientific nominations for a council without being able to even give a reason.
Defending against this decision, justifying the nominations requires these reason, else the defense can simply say the prime minister is infringing academic freedom and it will be true by default.
He is not just any employer, he is administrating public resources and rejected to confirm members of a council meant to keep an ethical control of its government. The public see this as an abuse. Your problem is thinking that anything legal is also free to do. I never said it was illegal, I said it was necessary.
They are not exactly harmless advisors.
They are not meant to be harmless, their role is to criticize anything that is judged contrary to what has been agreed to be done about resseach. Precisely because to exert pressure (not approve, not decide) about research is their role. The government wants to research without justifying itself against the organism made precisely to do that, but keeping the council so it can pretend to be still ethically bound by them. That is invalid, like removing any kind of penalties from the laws punishing political corruption.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
No one is negating that masks are a physical barrier, there have been a lot of studies just like this one that basically show the dynamics of airborne particles when you sneeze from a mask, or breath or whatever, this isn't new.
Others studies have not used this strain of virus, they cannot be extrapolated and that is why this study is important, it helps supporting the health authorities recommendation and it cannot be simply done, being a physical barrier is not the important conclusion of this study but that it does help reducing the risk of contagion. It does not matter that this is not done in the real world because it still indicate results.
This study do not conclude nor recommend that wearing a mask makes everything ok, only that it helps because it does. this is not a 0 or 100% thing. Bring the reference you mention, it would not be the first time someone takes the wrong conclusion from a study that even contradict what the authors said. For all we know they may not even have used SARS-CoV-2.
The danish study is not important, at all, because it has not been published, and the reason for not publishing it as a preprint are not believable, if many professional authors and institutes support a well designed study and the results expected by many scientists it makes no sense that it will be ignored just because it is a preprint.
Saying that journals are rejecting a study where even the authors are in conflict because of invalid reasons is also saying they are lying.
If the study gets published, as they actually confirmed that are trying to get it published, will you acknowledge the results?
Obviously, the same as this one, that of course do not meant the results have to be believed as dogma, but considered according to how close they followed the methodology they said they were going to use and how well they defend their results from conflicting evidence in the conclusions. The problem would be believing that a study without any results published somehow "has" to prove another (already published) as wrong is not rational. First class journals may have perfectly valid reasons to reject it.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
For those seeking to combat the effects of pollution in smog-choked cities, South Korea's LG Electronics has developed an air purifier mask.
As long as the air is filtered both going in and out it should be fine, probably too heavy and expensive to become popular, but for people that feel suffocated while using masks even for a short time this would be quite useful, (and way cheaper and easier to use than the available powered air purifying respirators that cover the whole head)
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
The council, set up in 1949, has repeatedly opposed military technology research at universities, most recently in 2017. Its objections to government funding for such research is contrary to efforts by Suga's predecessor, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, to build up Japan’s military capability.
This is not just a Japanese trend, around the world most research institutes are becoming more and more careful about "dual use" technology and the importance of not supporting military advances when their mission is to help peaceful purposes. Ethically this is as important as protecting the vulnerable population from being abused during research or avoiding large scale ecological destruction with the indiscriminate release of genetically modified life forms.
It is not surprising that hundreds of academic groups reject this badly made and yet completely unjustified decision. Seeing the huge political cost this is having for his government you just have to wonder how this is still better than just do the right thing (either give a proper, valid justification or just take back the rejections). Its almost as if this was the main reason he was let into his current position.
6 ( +9 / -3 )
But we often hear of adverse effects occurring within minutes or hours after vaccination, not 6 months.
I never said that the people will have trouble at the end of the 6 months, simply that speaking from the point of view of a group of people the more people you include and the more time you are following the more likely it is to find all kinds of problems, from small aches to life threatening problems.
Since the vast majority of the adverse effects are pain and swelling in the site of injection it is obvious they will be presented in the first minutes and hours after the injection. But that also applies for people injected saline solution as a placebo.
If you follow an equivalent group of thousands of people for the same amount of time it is unbelievable that not a single one of them had any health problem during that time. That is why thinking it is weird that something was not related to the vaccine is invalid. It is perfectly possible.
And when considering vaccine safety, I suspect they only look at short term adverse effects; RFK jr talked about this.
If that were the case the vaccines would be ready for the population since the summer, Phase III is precisely done to look for a much longer time to every kind of problem any of the participants would present, because the people doing the immunizations as well as the ones examining the patients and the volunteers themselves all ignore who got what. RFK Jr is well known for repeating false statements that have been proved so, it has no credibility and has accepted to be deeply antiscientific, nobody interested on being rational would recommend to listening to him.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Once again, there is no public statement about the situation of what is going on with this study, but, as I said, what we need are exactly studies like this one, instead of these low quality, done a million times science fair experiments that keep finding their way into the national and international news as the "definitive answer" to some problem.
This is not a low quality study and cannot be made on science fair experiments. There is extreme importance in corroborating what is though with this virus, not with random aerosols, and with a controlled environment and precise methodology and measurements in order for it to be done. A lot of times what is though to be obvious turns out not to be so (like not transmission from asymptomatic carriers).
The article you keep mentioning is not published, it should have been at least as a preprint, and excuses about it are not believable, (and not pertinent to this post according to the moderators). The only important thing is this study is, the data is solid and it supports the recommendation to use masks. Until is contradicted by other studies of better quality there is no sense on saying it should be discarded as evidence.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
All fine as long as the lab provides proof of all necessary indicators to judge the quality of the tests. Too many places are not putting the necessary controls in place in order to save time and money with the testing and sensitivity ends up being much lower than necessary.
The price seems exaggerated but people that prepare with time there is no need to pay anything. Probably they are expecting to recover costs with the very few people that need to go overseas on an emergency and cannot be tested anywhere else.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
The first reports of this death were not disputed but now they are saying the volunteer was given the placebo. The statement about the placebo does not appear to come from a 3rd Party however
There is a 50% chance of that, it is not so difficult to believe, if you make a random group of thousands of people and follow them for 6 months it is very likely at least a few will have heavy health problems and one dying, It is of course needed to investigate such events, but there should be no problem with checking the information as it is registered by several actors, including the government, to see how likely they are related to the vaccine.
There is a lot of, cough cough, "information" on the internet with variable degrees of veracity. Everyone has an axe to grind. Why do I believe anything you post?
My point is the opposite, you don't need to believe anything, you can go to the best source you can find and check anything I write because nothing depends on anything I have to vouch for.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
The other article I brought up was not retracted; they simply terminated the study themselves. I guess the excuse they gave was that they concluded HCQ was not effective and that patients died. I suspect they terminated it when someone in their group realized that they had confused hydroxychloroquine with hydroxyquinolines and that the doses of hydroxychloroquine they were giving them were way too high, although you insisted the doses were fine and accused me of not reading the paper correctly.
There is no such study, never was. I already brough the studies you referenced (using exactly the links you provided) and my own quote about the doses.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
The mask is not for you, but to protect people from you.
I believe that is precisely the reason some people do not use the masks, because they are incapable of having even a small inconvenience for the sake of anybody but themselves, its easy to identify them because their usual defense is that if it is not illegal then there is no meaning in doing something, be it wearing a mask, washing their hands, using deodorant, etc.
This is a controlled environment experiment, which is good as a baseline but it isn't really that good at predicting outcomes at a community transition level.
But it is better than nothing, as more than what we have for isolation, washing hands, not talking etc. Good enough data to keep the recommendation for using masks as part of the hygienic measures meant to prevent spreading. At least until more data may possibly disprove them.
What is needed right now is a randomized controlled trial that test masks vs no masks.
Or washing hands vs not doing it, or keeping other people at some distance. But until we have those trials the safest bet is to keep the hygienic recommendations as they are now, since epidemiologically they seem to work and the limited experimental data still supports them.
In fact, there is one already, NCT04337541, which was already completed, but even thou the trial was highly regarded and quoted in the recruiting phase, has been unable to publish their results because, and I paraphrase one of the authors, the journals are afraid of the consequences of publishing the results.
Having biorxiv available for preprints this sounds more like a bad excuse than a real reason. Scientists do not depend on journals anymore to let other people know their results, their actual use if (supposedly) a good peer review system and collect IF points to get a better position in the future, but since most journals have no problem accepting papers already made available as a preprint anybody can do both things without problem.
The most frequent reason to avoid publishing something even as a preprint is that the results are not what they wanted to find or the methodologies used to "prove" their conclusions are too obviously flawed.
8 ( +11 / -3 )
An important thing is that inhaling some viruses do not automatically means you will get infected. The more virus enter the body the more likely it gets to develop an infection. So a reduction of 50% on the number of viruses can still mean a reduction of more than 50% of the infections.
Still it would have been interesting to see the reduction when both mannequins were breathing naturally, A cough is quite obvious and people with common sense will try to keep their distance from someone obviously sick with or without masks, but how about someone that is apparently healthy? hopefully the numbers are much higher.
And obviously these results require that the masks are being used properly. If the receiver mannequin had its mask below the nose (as too many people do) I can bet there is no reduction at all.
26 ( +27 / -1 )
Except her statement much later behind closed doors reveals that they do not have safe monitoring systems she claimed:
Here are her statements at the 3 minute mark (for your convenience - BUT I know you'll write it off as no need to worry. These vaccines are in fact "SAFE")
She clamed vaccines are safe with good monitoring systems, that does not mean those systems are perfectly functional everywhere, specially in places where not even distribution is working appropriately, the contradiction is only on your mind, both declarations are complementary without any problem. The systems are a necessity to avoid problems and they should be implemented as an absolute requirement in those places where (apart from many other problems) they are not in place, because in that case vaccines could have troubles without authorities being able to notice on time and (as she is mentioning) vaccines could be still as safe as everywhere else but there would be no proof of it.
You talk as if the coronavirus vaccine will be the end to the pandemic. It will not.
No, I talk as if the coronavirus vaccine COULD be the end to the pandemic, that depends on efficacy and safety, As I already corrected you "it will not" is simply an empty declaration without any weight, because you don't have a crystal ball to divinate the future and know the data yet to be obtained from the Phase III trials.
That is what makes you wrong, trying to force an absolute conclusion on something you cannot even evaluate because it is still in the future.
The bar has already been set so low for approval:
ONLY reduces cough and headache IF YOU GET COVID-19
Of course not, once again you are trying to divinate the future without any basis, having low requirements to advance from the preliminary data do not mean that is the result the vaccines will have at the end of the clinical trials, it only means the priority is on safety first and then thousands of participants can be evaluated and the real efficacy can then be evaluated.
Your mistaken conclusion is like seeing in a language school that the requirement to pass from elementary level to medium is to be able to do a self introduction and then concluding by this that nobody graduating from the advanced course will be able to do more than that. Simply irrational.
Well, it's looking like it won't do that. If something changes I will monitoring those details but looks like the bar is already set very low PLUS if you're lucky you have a good chance of getting a wallop of negative side effects (fever over 100 for 5 or more hours, severe headache, expect to take a day off the next day, fainting -whose going to catch you). AND these are healthy volunteers above 18-65 (you said some people above that)
No it does not look like that, that is just where you failed to properly understand what are the steps for the trials and what is going to be evaluated in preliminary and final results.
And no, there is no "good chance" of important side effects, what are those chances? one in a thousand participants? in five thousands? that would be like saying you have a "good chance" of dying of COVID.
Specially because until the end the participants are also blinded and its completely possible that many of those side effects were suffered by people that did not even received the vaccine.
The real kicker? Who of those volunteers had the actual COVID-19 infection?
A terribly easy question to answer once the data from the trials is taken, that is part of the purpose of doing it, to see who got it and what difference there are if they were vaccinated or not.
At least you finally accept you have no idea about the results, this is what makes your categorical predictions invalid, mistaken, false.
And from phase II & III seeing negative adverse events already and still you're pushing the "Hey...it happens all the time...it will all be fine" cause the 0.1%-0.5% death rate causes you grave concern.
Of course it happens all the time, so much that even people that did not received the vaccine also get them sometimes, unless you want to blame the vaccine for magically causing problems to people that do not get it that is enough to prove you wrong.
And yes, if up to one in 200 people die from the disease, while one in 2000 people vaccinated only get a few hours of fever and headaches that is a huge improvement. At least for people that like to be alive.
You think the side effects are more frequent? sure, put here the data you cannot have to prove it. Else you are just guessing again and pretending its a fact.
You don't look at age, you don't look at comorbidities you keep pushing the pharma agenda that "you never know...asymptomatic people are vulnerable too so you'd better get vaccinated with this new COVID-19 vaccine regardless.
Age and comorbidities are part of what the selection criteria for phase III includes for evaluation, just reading the trial description is enough to prove (again) you are wrong.
*Vaccines are designed to trigger the immune system into fighting off diseases. In rare instances, they can cause it to go into hyperdrive, resulting in severe allergic reactions and even paralysis. With potentially hundreds of millions of people getting vaccinated against one disease, *even a very small percentage can translate into a lot of injured people.
Doh! that is why the clinical trials are done, to prove that this "small percentage" is insignificant, and specially a much less number of people when compared with those that do get severe reactions from the natural infection (that is much more likely to produce it since it exposes the body to a million times or more of antigen even during an asymptomatic infection
Let me put a very basic example for you to understand this.
If a million people are vaccinated and 5 get an important negative reaction, that is unfortunate,
But if a million people get the natural infection and 500 get those negative reactions and 50 of them die it is obvious that being vaccinated is still much better.
*The potential volume of people affected “will be too much for some unfunded compensation program,”** said Topping, currently chief legal officer of CareSource Management Group Inc., a Dayton, Ohio-based non-profit that’s one of the nation’s largest Medicaid-managed health care plans."*
Or it could not, or funding can be allowed, once again, you are trying to predict the future and pretend its a fixed thing, surprise, it is not.
Billions have been paid for people that have no need to prove vaccines damaged them, only that this may have been the case. That for vaccines that do not have such a big impact on the lives of the population. It is very naive to think that at the same time the government will do things completely differently just this case, and push for the vaccine without providing a safety net for the patients to be able to claim damages as they want. Even if for any reason there is no compensation program that by definition would mean that vaccines would not be even recommended, the government do not have to absorb responsibility just because someone have a vaccine to sell, it can simply choose not to include any given vaccine to that program and there will be no compensation to be given from the government.
Once again....no long term studies in children, pregnant women, those who have more comorbidities, seniors 65 and above that this "liquid confidence" is supposed to protect. And now if they are injured they will not be compensated?
Yes, no long term studies on anybody, specially people infected with COVID-19, that are much more likely to have problems in the future just because they are exposed to viral proteins made specifically to mess with the immune system (and completely absent from every vaccine in phase III trials) in huge amounts.
The lack of long term studies is one of the most effective arguments FOR vaccination, this bad argument do not apply for a vaccine for a new disease, the only value it has is for diseases that already have those studies.
Looks like you're on your own so tread carefully and follow the reactions from each of the vaccine manufacturer trials (you could care less about them probably). It's not looking to be fine and dandy like you say it is.
How would you know? you have no idea about the data of the trials, it is not even collected yet, That is my point, that to sustain all your arguments you need that data that you don't have, so the only thing you have are beliefs that you try to disguise as facts, they are not, at the end is you trying to force products of your imagination.
You're almost oblivious to any adverse reactions those volunteers have. Which is troubling to see for a vaccine that only reduces cough and headache...with a bar set that doesn't prevent infection, transmission, hospitalization and death. Not a vaccine in my opinion. Just a shot that reduces cold symptoms but gives you a major blast of the flu symptoms for 1 or 2 days (from what I've seen so far).
Of course not, much less to the degree you are always oblivious the huge health problems and deaths caused by the pandemic, something that makes you so easily ignore them as non important (something morally unacceptable) You don't even know if the adverse reactions come from people actually vaccinated, you failed to prove that the vaccine only effect is reducing cough and headache (again your imagination)
Try reading with more time, you have troubles understanding almost every piece of information you bring, almost as if you were doing it on purpose. Like the antivaxxers that actively promote science denialism in order to benefit economically from selling antiscientific "cures" and "preventive measures" to all the people they mislead into doubting clear data.
9 ( +11 / -2 )
Vaccines ARE safe and effective with VERY GOOD SAFETY MONITORING SYSTEMS according to W.H.O.'s chief scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan
What is wrong with that? it is obvious that effective monitoring systems are required to continuously corroborate safety and efficacy, It does prove that your false argument that vaccines have no liability whatsoever its nonsense (if it were true, what role would the monitoring systems have?). Emphasizing the importance of those systems is yet another way of preventing problems, so countries without them should prepare and implement them now, where there is still time to do it.
I know you really wish for this not to be said, so you could still say that nobody ever gives importance to keeping vaccinations in check, but fortunately that is not true, vigilance is a huge part of immunizations campaigns because nobody just assume vaccines are perfect (a favorite strawman of the antivaxxers).
You just had to add that last tidbit didn't you virusrex? It's just not safe out there....better get your injections today. Because, because "every week or so a new consequence is found".
Well it does not matter at all how much you dislike it, it is true. And no, vaccinations are not the sole way to protect you from those yet unknown risks, giving the proper importance to the COVID-19 allows people to protect themselves better with a huge lot of measures, from nutrition and exercise to better hygiene and opportune visits to the doctor.
I know it completely destroys your endlessly repeated argument that any new vaccine will not have long term studies of safety (since the natural infection neither does, and have demonstrated much more risks on the short and medium term), but that is a very poor reason to try and live in denial of the hidden dangers of a disease. Knowledge allows for people to be careful instead of scared, as the antivaxxers would wish. Always with the appeal of the "possible" dangers that lurk over the next immunization and how people would likely die or be left invalid over something that has proved to be much safer than the diseases they prevent.
2 ( +6 / -4 )
There is a connection between climate change, deforesting, and pandemics. Covid is not the end of it. expect more diseases and pandemics in the future unless we change the way we do things.
The worse is that there is no need for new diseases to appear, the old ones expanding their territory will be a bad enough crisis. In the last years many specialists have said that its very likely that a sudden huge epidemic of Yellow Fever could bring huge chaos to tropical and subtropical countries, even with a vaccine available the stocks are not enough to vaccinate the vast amount of people that are unvaccinated right now.
And Japan is not protected either, every year mosquitoes carrying epidemic viruses are found around the Narita and Haneda airports, if the climate changes enough for those few mosquitoes to survive the winter we would be looking to epidemics in Tokyo as seen on countries like Vietnam or The Philippines, only that much worse because for many viruses there is no vaccine available (Like Dengue or Chikungunya) and the population is completely unprotected because almost nobody has had the infection.
By now mosquitoes could survive the winter with as little as one degree higher average temperatures.
6 ( +8 / -2 )
12 kids died naturally ? Sounds weird!
Sedatives are not used routinely, specially for children as explained in the article, if the 63 patients had very serious conditions it is not weird that some of them died as a consequence, with or without the sedative.
Still, if its use is explicitly forbidden with the exception when doctors take responsibility that is exactly what it means, that if anything goes wrong it cannot be just assumed that they did what is best for the patient according to the best medical practices. An investigation is perfectly justified on every case to corroborate that the medical judgment was correct or not, and if something not justified is found there is no place to run.
This is a delicate issue, because it pushes doctors not to do anything risky, even if they consider it could save a patient, because it will be much safer... for the doctors. But without this kind of rules there is a much higher risk of negligence going unpunished by mavericks that don't think twice before risking the lives of their patients without taking proper care of them.
5 ( +8 / -3 )
What?!! I thought vaccines were safe and effective!
They are, in general and much more than the option, that in this case is the risk of an infection with serious complications and even death in the short term, and who knows what in the long term because every week or so a new consequence is found, even on people that were asymptomatic.
That is not the same as saying nothing could ever go wrong, that is just a pseudo-argument that people against science and public health like to use instead of the real one. Things can go wrong, even with the outmost care, and a precise system to deal with that possibility is necessary. Which is what the article talks about.
4 ( +8 / -4 )
Apologies for being one of the armchair medics here. After seeing virusrex pushing the "pharma can do no wrong with their "safe" vaccines" and explaining away all issues as if they were minimal....just had to start putting more info out there for others to decide for themselves. Wouldn't be surprised if he's being paid by pharma to "calm the worries about vaccines" and further push their narrative onto several forums/sites.
The apologies would be more appropriate about repeating false information even when you have been already been informed it is false. That is a much more pressing issue with the comments.
Of course pharma can do wrong, that is very different from your post that are all about pharma cannot do any good, and already did bad in the future because you make conclusions in the absence of data. that is simply mistaken.
"Americans who suffer adverse reactions to coronavirus vaccines that the U.S. is racing to develop will have a hard time getting compensated for injuries from the drugs.
You have been already corrected on this, anybody suspecting any adverse reaction will not even need to prove that was the case, only that it is possible to do. That is much simpler and easier, its a compromise to pay for possible damages instead of making people try to prove what is many times impossible, so not only they get no compensation, they would have to pay legal fees into bankruptcy.
That’s because pandemic-related claims for vaccines will be routed to a rarely used federal program set up to encourage drugmakers to help combat public health emergencies. It spares pharmaceutical and device makers from costly liability lawsuits in exchange for taxpayers compensating injured patients — though it doesn’t guarantee there’s funding to do so."
Again, you repeat something you know to be untrue, it is not "rarely" used since you yourself have said that billions have been paid, you contradict what you yourself wrtie.
And no, it does not spares companies, they still have complete liability as evidenced by the constant vigilance and corroboration that government laboratories do to test that the vaccines are as safe and efficient as they are supposed to do. The spared ones are the people seeking compensation, because they no longer have to fight companies, as longa as their claim is not obviously impossible they get compensation.
I know it destroys completely this false point, but it does not matter how much you want to ignore this very open truth, I can write it again as many times as you like.
"Connection between vaxx and autism has definitely not been debunked. And why would we need a fund for injuries if vaccines are safe? Answer: They are not."
False, autism has already been debunked by science as a consequence of vaccination, terminantly, without any realistic chance of being wrong. Only people that actively deny science still believe they are related. That and crooks that fake studies to profit from their own vaccines like Wakefield, hero of the antivaxxers even if he took advantage of minors for unethical experimentation.
We hear "The Science in Settled" and you are no longer allowed to question the safety of vaccines?
Using proved lies? of course not, you were never allowed to use lies to question anything.
Real professionals do question the safety of vaccines constantly and work to improve it. Antivaxxers on the other hand only repeat things they already know are false just to make other people share their mistakes, that is not valid, not for vaccines nor for anything else.
"Informed consent" rarely exists now among doctors as they aren't aware of the ingredients / possible risks / adverse events in each shot or even the fact that they grow the weakened viruses (depending on the vaccine) in chicken, mice, aborted fetal tissue and even insect cells and then injected them saying that they are totally safe and if you dare question that you are labeled a quack or antivaxxer. Hmmm....something's gone off the rails here.
You don't understand what informed consent means, doctors could ignore all of this (they don't) and it would be still informed consent as long as the patient is informed of everything of importance.
But still this is a moot point, doctors never say "this is totally safe" only antivaxxers that have never taken a vaccine can repeat this obvious lie. What doctors say (and its perfectly valid) is that the vaccine is much safer than the infection, and they are right.
Not a single vaccine on the CDC’s vaccine schedule has been subjected to “double-blind randomized placebo-controlled” studies
When developed of course they do, but those already determined to be safer than the infection by long term studies should NOT be subjected to placebo, its unethical, as unethical as to make a placebo trial of antibiotics for acute sepsis. There is such a thing as evident benefit. Antivaxxers ask for an impossible standard that would cause unnecessary sickness and death just to prove what is already known.
Due to the 1986 vaccine act, vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued for vaccine damage, but they regularly lose lawsuits on drugs that they manufacture, which are tested and approved by the FDA. Why should we trust them with vaccines that are not tested?
Because it is in the best interest of the population to have an effective and safe health intervention, so they recommend the vaccines, so they government is the one that takes the role of making sure they keep safe and effective and absorb the claims of people that suspect damage. All for the good of everybody. People that refuse to be treated because of imaginary risks are not generally a risk for others so the government does not test and corroborate pharmaceuticals as close as they do with vaccines, so the responsibility resides on the companies. If nobody wants to use them then they can choose to put their own health at risk and that will be all.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
Pharmas make a fortune selling vaccines, and then make a greater fortune treating the complications caused by vaccines.
Not even a peanut compared with the sales of treatments, specially for complications, because any complication that would require treatment is so rare that it would make absolutely no sense to even take it into account. The confusion comes from deep ignorance about anything to do with health services, people without understanding see for example 500 deaths in vaccinated people and their ignorance makes them think "oh 500 people died because of the vaccine" without taking the few seconds extra to read that an equivalent population of unvaccinated people had 600 deaths.
There are plenty of experiments demonstrating HCQ's effectiveness. Low doses given early, ideally with zinc, was shown to be effective, and is something that should be made available.
The last time I asked you for those "experiments" every single one of the reports you brought were very minor advantages and all perfectly attributable to bias in the selection that even the authors of the reports accepted would make up for the differences. The position of every single association of health professionals in the world is that HCQ have demonstrated no advantage in the treatment, much less enough to overcome the risks of using it. (And no, there are not a thousand bill gates to pay the trillions necessary to bribe every one of those associations, even if doctors were to accept bribes in order to let their family members and friends die without a supposedly effective treatment)
Unfortunately, some are focusing on experiments where massive doses of HCQ were given without zinc at late stages of infection, as if they wanted the experiments to fail.
That is a myth, propagated by people that make money from fraudulent treatments and that benefit from fooling people to distrust the science that prove they are crooks. Again, the last time you said those "experiments" were being investigated by the criminal "megadoses" but then you put as example perfectly valid studies, done with serum levels on par with patients with other diseases that actually respond to HCQ and not even one of the supposedly criminal studies was ever under investigation.
It may be that you trust too much those sites where they depend on videos to manipulate people instead of primary sources that you may not be understanding at all.
2 ( +5 / -3 )
In any case, why is a 17-year-old boy receiving 'flu shots?
Because its safer than not getting them, every year people die from influenza, even perfectly healthy young people. There is nothing wrong with trying to prevent a very dangerous disease with a vaccine.
Where there is risk there must be choice. No mandated vaccines.
Sound advice if you live in North Korea, irrelevant for the rest of the world, people are free to choose the much higher risk of not vaccinating for whatever reasons, valid like an immunodeficiency or invalid like imaginary problems, makes no difference.
This is terrible. His whole life before and he may have died trying to avoid a minor illness. This needs to be thoroughly investigated and heads should roll.
Influenza is not a minor illness, it maims and kills around half a million people a year. Unless you have some information not on the article it makes no sense to demand and investigation and punishment for something that can be unrelated, it would not be the first nor the last time something is attributed to a vaccine or a drug just because it was close to the problem. First let the investigation finds the cause, and if it is the vaccine then yes responsible people should be punished. The opposite is also true, if the causes of the deaths are unrelated but vaccination is refused because of the publicity and people die unnecessarily from a preventable disease (specially important this year with the COVID-19) then people responsible for the propaganda should also take responsibility for them.
the 'flu jab is no joke and is almost as bad as the full-blown variety - minus the fever.
In general that is not true, most people don't have any important side effects (above pain and swelling on the vaccination site) and definitely nothing even close to a full blown influenza case.
18 ( +27 / -9 )
None of the vaccines listed in this article pass my acceptance requirement
It is fortunate that your acceptance is not such a big factor for public health decisions, specially because you don't even have the data for the trials, so it seems more like a prejudice than a well documented judgment.
Remember how Hydroxychloroquine, a drug successfully used for 70 years was successfully pushed out by health business using claims of minor side effects and claims that although it is widely used it was not gone through enough trials to be safe.
HCQ is successful, but only for the pathologies where it had shown efficacy, every few years it tried against a new disease and fails repeatedly. Like in COVID-19 the problem is not the minor side effects (not so minor actually) but that there is no benefit for its use against this disease, so using it has no meaning.
Real reason, it is so cheap there was no money to be made so we were prevented from even finding if it was of any use in the early stages of infection. They have purposely given it only to some dieing patience knowing that at that stage it was too late to make difference.
No, that is a myth, easily demonstrated as such by dexamethasone, that is also dirt cheap and no money can be made of it, but its well recognized as effective and safe, there has been many studies with HCQ where it failed to protect from infection, from complications and from death. That includes even healthy people.
So I am saying this to compare now with the Vaccines being rushed in regardless of incomplete trials and major side effects.
Any vaccine for next year is not rushed, they are following a schedule used for other vaccines that are in use right now. And all have side effects, as long as they are less important in degree and number than the natural infection that is not a problem.
Russians have done much more research, explained in detail why and how their Vaccine should work, did reasonable pre trials and trials and yet every cat and mouse are screaming that they are going to fast and since there are no side effects there are also no effects.
Anybody can explain how something should work, but for vaccines 6 months is the least amount of time to corroborate with some degree of certainty that things are as safe as they are supposed to be. For all we know the Russian vaccine is safe and effective, but the problem is that it was not tested for long enough to be sure it can be used in the general population, and that is an ethical problem.
I think I will gladly keep my distancing and mask for now and let the suckers help Pharmas to get rich.
"Pharmas" get much richer the less vaccines there are, one person visiting the ICU leaves more money than a thousand vaccines being sold, that is an argument FOR vaccines, not against.
-1 ( +5 / -6 )
You're absolutely right. We need to vaccinate with this COVID-19 vaccine....for a "deadly" coronavirus.
More deadly that any vaccine used currently? yes, and hugely so. No single vaccine in use right now has even a tenth of the lethal rate of COVID-19
(and no, seeing how much you like to repeat proven lies, Fluzone do NOT have a high lethality rate, the vaccine is directed to elderly population that by itself have a high risk of death, the vaccine do not increase that risk at all)
I know you're going to try to discredit that site (like you do every site that doesn't agree with your narrative of pharma does no wrong) so look at their sources in the tables. The links to data by country, charts are all there.
Of course not, the swiss propaganda research site discredit itself constantly as a source of lies, misleading information and falsehoods, coming from the very name, which in reality has nothing to do with Swiss. The data presented do not prove at all that any vaccine is even comparable to the risk of COVID, which is something that I have already corrected you about.
The propaganda site is well known as an invalid source of information since their bias is part of the mission of the site, it is a well reported misinformation site by their own merits.
But yeah...let's keep the fear going.
You mean by repeating proven lies not based on any scientific data and using the worries of a professor to somehow justify your biased opinion that we should fear vaccines because the requirements to continue a trial are not up to perfection? No, sorry, knowledge and truth, reliable and well substantiated in evidence is the natural enemy of fear, something that you are trying to use to push people into believing things that you cannot prove.
It'll help sell the pharma narrative that putting your family through serious negative adverse events (or risk of) is perfect for reducing your cough and headache (even if it doesn't prevent infection, transmission, hospitalization and death from COVID-19).
Again, false. I asked you for scientific data to prove that your beliefs have any relationship with reality, but apparently you have none. That still means it is incorrect, false, misleading.
There is nothing that makes impossible for a vaccine to be effective and safe, as every other vaccine being used today. Something that even your own source (Prof. William A. Haeltine) repeats constantly.
Up until now the only thing you have proved is that you don't like this very real possibility and are not above using proved lies to defend your beliefs. That is not valid.
1 ( +6 / -5 )
Excerpts from the Forbes article:
Yes, none of those excerpts prove that your post is true, it is still mistaken without hope because you keep assuming no vaccine will be above the minimum requirements for the interim points of evaluation. Not even the final requirements for the vaccine. You are still wrong even if you keep copying and pasting something that apparently you are struggling to understand.
Again, for as many times as you need because it seems that repetition is necessary, minimum requirements are perfectly fine when there is no alternative to beat, and they can be surpassed without any problem (and most likely will) specially when many candidates are competing for having the best protection and safety.
Neither you nor the article show any data to prove that vaccines are not going to surpass the partial and final requirements, which is necessary if you want to say things "are" or "will be" instead of "may be".
So, where is the data I asked on the first place?
I'm surprised at your confidence hasn't wavered one bit in this unreleased vaccine and again NO LONG TERM STUDIES AND NO STUDIES ON EFFECTS ON CHILDREN, PREGNANT MOTHERS and the ELDERLY.
This is another thing I have already corrected you, Phase III trials DO test on elderly patients and people with comorbidities, to a much greater detail than the natural infection.
COVID-19 have no long term studies, so any possible side effects years after vaccination are much more likely to be had from the infection, because patients are exposed to millions times more antigens in a much greater variety than with any vaccine now being developed.
So I ask again, why keep using an argument you know is mistaken? is is more important to you to convince people, even about something you know is mistaken? Public health should be a much greater priority than convincing other people to make the same mistakes as you.
If this COVID-19 vaccine you are so looking forward to:
Won't stop transmission
Won't stop hospitalization
Won't stop death
this is the point, IF as something that comes out of your imagination, a completely hypothetical situation that you were unable to prove is even likely. If something has no advantage then it will not get approved, nor used, as easy as that, but that is unlikely to happen in an astronomically low scale. Partial results have surpassed minimum requirements without problems, if you don't like it that has no importance.
It is still perfectly possible that a safe and effective vaccine will be ready for next year, be it from the candidates already on Phase III or those one step behind.
Now you are just dismissing the adverse events as if they were meaningless and that we have nothing to worry about....these severely negative side effects happen...nothing to see here...move along. C'mon son!
You know what is much worse than having a headache for a few hours? dying from COVID-19. Specially when you don't even know if the headaches have anything to do with the vaccine (because it is still possible each of the people with the side effects got a placebo)
Life is not perfect, but if the worst case scenario is that a vaccine gives you a terribly low chance of having a bad day, that would still be better than a higher chance of spending a couple of weeks on the ICU with who knows what long lasting sequelae or even dying from the infection.
Here's some discussion on the Forbes article to help you put things in better perspective:
So when people ask you the minimum necessary to prove any of your alarmist misrepresentations actually hold any basis on reality your only answer is a video? and from a horribly discredited antivaxxer source that has repeatedly lied about very important matters just for profit? It is not surprising that you insist repeating things that you know are false with such bad examples.
Again, if you don't have the data why is it so difficult to simply accept it?
2 ( +10 / -8 )
This has absolutely none of the proof required for your comment, it just states the obvious thing that is that a vaccine is not meant to prevent infection but only to eliminate the disease, which is precisely the purpose of every single vaccine for pathogens ever made. This is what a vaccine is supposed to do, when the pathogen enters the body it is very likely to produce infection, which will then be aborted by the acquired immunity producing a very minor syndrome or even a completely asymptomatic infection, reducing obviously the risk of death (because no complication is produced) and transmission (because a much less amount of virus is produced in the body). Contrary to what he says, prevention of infection is not a required criterion for any vaccine, that is not what they are meant to do.
The other problem is thinking that a limited requirement automatically means every single candidate will only have this level of efficacy and safety. Which is not rational, competition alone is enough to provide a reason for some of the candidates to be vastly superior to this requirement. To say this is not true data from the trials is required, and since phase III is not even finished it is impossible for anybody to have it.
There, thanks for providing proof that your post is false.
I'm sure you're going to find a way to character assassinate him and try to debunk his expertise.
That is completely unnecessary, This article is enough to prove that he is completely out of the field of his expertise, and making invalid assumptions that have already been proved false. Phase III trials over 6 months of duration are not new for this vaccine, they have already been done before, and volunteers included are in the thousands for each candidate. Focusing on the interim numbers as if they were the final considerations for approval is not valid. They are meant only to allow for the trial to be completed so they are much less stringent than what the approval requires.
But even if everything he said were right that still means your post is mistaken. One thing is that a vaccine have limited requirements in order to be allowed to complete a clinical trial, another completely different is that it is impossible for any of the vaccine candidates to surpass those requirements just because.
So having a terribly small percentage of people with heavy side effects over a few hours (even if they themselves did not know if they were given the vaccine or placebo) somehow proves that everybody will now have them?
Sorry but that is nonsense, part of the safety requirements is that the vaccine is much safer than the natural infection. That obviously includes side effects, any vaccine that is not better than the natural infection (that frequently is asymptomatic) cannot be approved by definition.
Bring a comparison of the frequency and severity of side effects between vaccine and placebo and demonstrate it is significantly higher for the vaccine. What if the numbers are around the same between groups? what if lthe difference is less than 0.01%?
Again you don't have the results of the trials, you are trying to guess what the results will be and basing your criticism on what you believe they will be, beliefs are irrelevant. Bring data, scientifically analyzed.
So it is still a terribly bad attempt at misinforming people, and even worse, it is something that was already explained before in another article, why insist in something you already know to be mistaken? It feels almost as if your only purpose was to convince people of something you yourself know to be wrong.
2 ( +10 / -8 )
PREVENTS DISEASE: NO - Wait, isn't it supposed to prevent COVID-19?
PREVENTS DEATH: NO - Wait, it's not going to save lives of people at risk?
PREVENTS TRANSMISSION: NO - Wait, it will still spread throughout the population?
Completely false. Any vaccine approved is required to do all three things safely.
Pulling out of the air that they have no efficacy is very easy, the difficult part is to prove it. Specially because phase III of the clinical trials is not even finished, so it is impossible to have the necessary data to prove it.
This is just a terribly bad attempt of misinformation.
2 ( +11 / -9 )
Vaccination has always been a terribly difficult thing to do in many developing countries, and a lot of the money that is spent in support programs is used in the distribution and maintenance of the vaccines so they can be used safely and efficiently. Unfortunately this is still insufficient.
The pandemic is not the one that is originating these problems, it only helped put them in the spotlight. People working on vaccination programs at all levels have always been aware how difficult it is to even maintain current efforts, adding a new vaccine is only going to make things impossible to do unless Covax is much more successful than now.
New technologies like mRNA vaccines help a lot to make them safer and more efficient (so less doses are necessary) but also make them more fragile and difficult to distribute. This is not too difficult to deal with in developed countries, but at this point nobody is seriously considering these new vaccines to be useful in places where even a normal refrigerator is difficult to get.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
Posted in: Every year, a dwindling pool of working-age Japanese people is forced to support an expanding pool of gray-haired consumers. This is why Japan’s living standards are falling behind rich countries with growing populations. This means more adults are forced into spending hours doing elderly care, more taxes to pay for pensions and health care, and lower living standards for the elderly.