mikee

For those of you that considered the science faulty, the Nobel committee just smacked you. I guess the Nobel committee didn't listen to the right wing blitz on how bad the science was.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2023/press-release/

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

The science was definitely a game-changer, certainly worthy of recognition, and will hopefully revolutionize immune therapy against not only infections, but cancer as well.

The "blitz" (which you attribute to "right wing" but actually includes a large number of acclaimed scientists who are not politically motivated) is an objection to the hype used by the government, P****r, M*****a, et al. to market a product dishonestly.

With insufficient trial data to justify the claims of efficacy (for example, that the m**A C***d v*****e will prevent infection and prevent the spread), insufficient trial data to justify the recommendations on who should take it, with failure to recognize the immunity provided by actual infection, and reluctance to admit to the incidence of serious side effects.

So there's no complaint against the scientists who developed the technology. It's the manner in which this specific use of the technology was sold to an unsuspecting public.

And by the way, a Nobel prize nowadays carries significant political connotation. Moreso in the humanities where a man can earn the Peace Prize for doing nothing, but in the sciences as well.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Considering the urgency, I think they did a bang up job. How many more would have died had they gone through longer trials?

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

In many respects, I agree.

Had they been honest, and simply stated the realistic benefits of C***d v******tion (as they generally do with flu shots), rather than over-promising the benefits, under-playing the side-effects, and poo-pooing any immunity gained from actual infection, they would not have lost so much public trust.

And by "they" I mean largely the FDA and CDC, who did not hold P****r, M*****a, et al. to continuing to collect and release data (I suspect they have the data, but won't release it voluntarily) about the v*****es' true efficacy, if any, in preventing infection, on the severity and length of infection, on side effects, etc. Such studies should still be ongoing.

But the FDA and CDC also dropped the ball on properly studying effects of masking, social distancing, lock-downs, etc. and on providing good quality hard data when they recommended these measures population-wide.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

How could they have known all of that on something so new?

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

They had already done in-the-real-world testing before ‘we’ were allowed to be v******ted. I got C***d shots as soon as my state allowed me to {I’m over 70}. The {federal} government asked about my health regularly. I have no reason to believe they ‘dropped the ball’.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I think it was in March 2020 that Dr. F***i recommended against masking by the general public specifically because of the shortage of masks. My wife had a few left over from when she had a bout of anemia, so she carefully passed them out to family members. My sister made some. By such means we got through the next few months.

It took time for them to gather “good quality hard data”. Scientists cannot wave a magic wand and have data.

srg

Money can, and does corrupt humans.
So you are saying that some scientists are human?

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

They could not.

So why did they instruct the public that getting v******ted would prevent us from getting C***d? Or that getting v******ted would prevent us from spreading C***d? Or that even those who had C***d and recovered, still needed to get v******ted?

Moreover to mandate v******tions based on no data?

Why not just be honest, and say that - like with flu v*****e - it will hopefully reduce your risk, or lesson the severity if you do get C***d, etc.?

We expect honesty from our healthcare providers, to advise us how to better our health, not fabricated t***hs that are designed to alter our behavior.

They decided to make up their own facts, based on no data, and mislead the public. Hence the loss in public trust.

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

They had done enough real world testing to prove safety and a minimal efficacy (something like just over 50% effectiveness) after a few weeks interval. But nothing to what the real world benefits would, or would not, be.

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

But they did wave their magic wand and promise benefits for which there was no proof in the form of randomized, controlled studies, which are the gold standard to guide evidence-based medicine. Which is supposedly what we practice in the 21st century.

And what has the CDC done to gather "good quality hard data" during the past 3-years-and-still-going of C***d to assess the actual benefits and downsides of v*****es? In the form of randomized controlled studies? Nothing.

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

So you are saying that money corrupts all humans?

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Everyone was panicked. I believe they acted in good faith. I'm at a disadvantage here. You are a doctor and I'm not. I'm not sure that makes you an expert, but it may. I certainly am not.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

They could say “We recommend this” - and that is what they said. They had already experimented - and experts had studied the data.

When I was in the first grade, we were t***sported by school bus, to another elementary school where the gym was full of white-covered tables and needle-bearing nurses. Later, my parents received a {mimeographed} letter thanking them for allowing their son or daughter to be a part of the test. It turned out that I had been a part of the control group, so three c**pons for the real thing were included. The letter was signed by someone named “Dr. Salk”.

I studied evaluating a test such as that in college, and I had nightmares of “Dr. Salk” hoping that I would be infected, because that would make his v*****e look better. Actually, nothing in this world is guaranteed. In the months before their test of the polio v*****e, one of my classmates had been infected; I was not. He came back later with metal crutches and braces, looking like a ‘March of Dimes’ poster. Anyway, I decided that I would take a treatment as soon as it was available to me.

Other people had been the experimental subjects in the case of C***d. Statistics is used to evaluate the results. Since only a proportion are infected in any case, statistics are used to determine that at worst some number, say 0.5%, chance that the treatment doesn’t work. Scientists cannot say “never”, but the statistics allow them to say “the odds are in your favor”, and that is good enough for me - I’ll let others be the ‘volunteer control group’.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Wrong again. They did collect data - they asked questions of me every so often - they simply believe that the average person has neither the understanding nor the means to evaluate it. They don’t have to ‘randomize’ it - the size of our population causes it to act as though it were - but the experiments which informed their recommendations were “randomized controlled studies”.