Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine

[Alan Klein]

I am not the one that every other post says that experts can't be trusted, and then in the next breath rely on a expert's opinion I happen to agree with.

I never said I don't listen to experts.  What I said is that Covid experts kept changing their minds and scientific knowledge keeps changing.  I read experts' advice with caution and try to read between the lines.  I admit I'm biased toward experts who agree with my thinking.  Who isn't? 

[faberryman]

I never said I don't listen to experts.

You have said ad nauseum that experts can't be trusted. If experts can't be trusted, why do you trust them?

[Alan Klein]

You have said ad nauseum that experts can't be trusted. If experts can't be trusted, why do you trust them?

It's why I get second opinions.  How do you decide which expert to listen to when experts have differing opinions?  Is the market going up or down?  How do you decide these things? How do you decide which experts are "right"? I take advice with a grain of salt.  Don't you? 

[Manoli]

What I said is that Covid experts kept changing their minds and scientific knowledge keeps changing.

For 'changing' read 'evolving'.

[TechTalk]

What misrepresentation has been made? The CDC stopped vaccinations using J&J.

The point is, the government stopped the Johnson vaccinations. No one is getting vaccinated with it.

"What’s more, doctors and vaccination sites can still give you the J&J vaccine. “This is a recommendation, and it’s not a mandate. It’s out of an abundance of caution,” Dr. Peter Marks, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a press conference on Tuesday. “If an individual health care provider has a conversation with an individual patient, and they determined that the benefit risk for that individual patient is appropriate, we’re not going to stop that provider from administering the vaccine.”

Do you not realize how ridiculous your posts have become? You post the same crap over and over despite being given facts to the contrary. Now you post a statement that contradicts your own post from an hour and a half earlier.

This on top of your repeated "Fauci shutdown J&J vaccine scaring people"; "We didn't need Fauci to stop Johnson vaccinations"; when Fauci is not part of the CDC or FDA which made the recommendation. We get it. You don't like Fauci. You even gave us your reasoning for it. "I don't like Fauci for what he did thirty years ago and my feelings about it.  I forget the particular situation."

Move on. You're making a fool of yourself with this issue.

[TechTalk]

“The takeaway message here is, the single most important thing people can do is get vaccinated,” said Panettieri. “Not to get vaccinated would put you at such an enhanced risk of death from COVID, or serious risk from COVID, that I would not be worried about these isolated and very rare cases of blood clots.”

Hence the reason that there was only a recommendation for a pause and NOT a withdrawal of the Emergency Use Authorization to administer the vaccine.

[Robert Roaldi]

Why not?  I just googled and found experts are making the same recommendation I am.  Proceed with the Johnson vaccine if you have an appointment and if the supplier is still willing to give them to you (which is probably doubtful because then they would be liable and be sued if something happens). Also, I didn't hear Fauci say his "pause" allows you to get the shot anyway.  There seems to be a conflict in government advice.

Johnson & Johnson vaccine pause: What to know if you got or scheduled the shot
"What’s more, doctors and vaccination sites can still give you the J&J vaccine. “This is a recommendation, and it’s not a mandate. It’s out of an abundance of caution,” Dr. Peter Marks, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a press conference on Tuesday. “If an individual health care provider has a conversation with an individual patient, and they determined that the benefit risk for that individual patient is appropriate, we’re not going to stop that provider from administering the vaccine.”

“The takeaway message here is, the single most important thing people can do is get vaccinated,” said Panettieri. “Not to get vaccinated would put you at such an enhanced risk of death from COVID, or serious risk from COVID, that I would not be worried about these isolated and very rare cases of blood clots.”

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/johnson-johnson-vaccine-pause-what-to-know-if-you-got-or-scheduled-the-shot-11618338584

If they had let the thing proceed without comment and study and a few more people got blood clots, you'd be foaming at the mouth about how "experts" put people at risk.

Something worrisome came up with a new drug/treatment and they want to re-examine things. How is it possible to be against this and instead say that people should make up their own minds. If the people who study this stuff want to have another look, then how can you possibly expect the avg joe on the street to make an informed choice.

All you ever do, Alan, is complain without reflection. Why do you do this? These are not difficult concepts.

Honestly, you're not making any sense.

[Alan Klein]

Hence the reason that there was only a recommendation for a pause and NOT a withdrawal of the Emergency Use Authorization to administer the vaccine.

I haven't found an article where the Johnson vaccine is still being administered. Typically, the government talks out of both sides of its mouth.  We're putting it on pause says one guy.  Meanwhile, another guy says it's OK to keep administering it.  Flip-flopping again.  Wich government expert should you believe?  Who in their right mind will give the shot now without the government reapproving it?  They would open themselves up to a lawsuit if someone gets sick.  I'm sure every corporate liability lawyer is telling their company to not give the vaccine.  If you miss out on your vaccination appointment, too bad!

[Robert Roaldi]

But not taking the flu shot was my choice, not the government's.  ...

Are you saying that the government forced you to take the Covid vaccine? First I hear of this. I thought it was only in fascist Canada that they dragged you to the clinic at gun point. You may be confused.

If you were a computer, I'd say it's time for a reset.

[Alan Klein]

If they had let the thing proceed without comment and study and a few more people got blood clots, you'd be foaming at the mouth about how "experts" put people at risk.

Something worrisome came up with a new drug/treatment and they want to re-examine things. How is it possible to be against this and instead say that people should make up their own minds. If the people who study this stuff want to have another look, then how can you possibly expect the avg joe on the street to make an informed choice.

All you ever do, Alan, is complain without reflection. Why do you do this? These are not difficult concepts.

Honestly, you're not making any sense.

But the same government that says they're putting a pause on the vaccine is also saying it's OK to proceed with the Johnson vaccinations.  That people and their doctors can make up their own minds.  So your point doesn't even make sense. It's very basis is in error.

[Robert Roaldi]

But the same government that says they're putting a pause on the vaccine is also saying it's OK to proceed with the Johnson vaccinations.  That people and their doctors can make up their own minds.  So your point doesn't even make sense. It's very basis is in error.

Others have addressed these points in the preceding pages.

[TechTalk]

I'm somehow reminded of a quote from the original Terminator movie. "Listen. Understand. That Terminator is out there. It can't be reasoned with, it can't be bargained with...it doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear...and it absolutely will not stop...Ever. Until you are dead." [or bored to death]

[faberryman]

It's why I get second opinions.  How do you decide which expert to listen to when experts have differing opinions?  Is the market going up or down?  How do you decide these things? How do you decide which experts are "right"? I take advice with a grain of salt.  Don't you?

Asked and answered many times by me as well as other here.

I would note that that I think there is a difference between taking an expert's opinion with a grain of salt, and going on a multi-year crusade against the untrustworthiness of experts and their opinions, including alleging that some of the experts with whose opinions you disagree are taking payoffs for rendering such opinions. Of course that is not unexpected. You are mimicking the behavior and thought process of your immortal beloved Trump who yesterday said the the CDC recommended pausing the J&J vaccine because they are friends with Pfizer. Actually, I am a little surprised that you have yet to advance that conspiracy theory here.

[Alan Klein]

Asked and answered many times by me as well as other here.

I would note that that I think there is a difference between taking an expert's opinion with a grain of salt, and going on a multi-year crusade against the untrustworthiness of experts and their opinions, including alleging that the experts with whose opinions you disagree are taking payoffs for rendering such opinions.

Well, in fairness, I believe many experts who I agree with also take payoffs.    I had a relative who worked for a pharmaceutical company.  Their job was to see doctors to promote their medicine.  They would pick up the cost for trips to conventions in Las Vegas, etc. It was a very cozy relationship.  Samples were given to doctors to give to their patients.  This still goes on although the AMA has clamped down.  Researchers need to get research money also do work that is often more in demand and see in their research results that would support more funding.  It blinds the eye.
 That goes on all the time as well.  It's not direct payoffs. 

[faberryman]

Well, in fairness, I believe many experts who I agree with also take payoffs.    I had a relative who worked for a pharmaceutical company.  Their job was to see doctors to promote their medicine.  They would pick up the cost for trips to conventions in Las Vegas, etc. It was a very cozy relationship.  Samples were given to doctors to give to their patients.  This still goes on although the AMA has clamped down.  Researchers need to get research money also do work that is often more in demand and see in their research results that would support more funding.  It blinds the eye.
 That goes on all the time as well.  It's not direct payoffs.

Is Dr. Peter Marks, whose opinion you quoted here and with which you said you agree, getting a direct or indirect payoff to render his opinion? Are his eyes being blinded? If so, how did you determine that? If not, how did you determine that?

Why are the eyes of the experts who are taking payoffs but with whom you agree not being blinded?

[Alan Klein]

Is Dr. Peter Marks, whose opinion you quoted here and with which you said you agree, getting a direct or indirect payoff to render his opinion? Are his eyes being blinded?

I don't recall which comment was Marks.  But I believe he's telling it as he sees it, or at least hope it is.  The problem is that many people including "experts" tend to find confirmation to support their beliefs.  Just like I find evidence to back up my point, and you find evidence to back up a contrarian point, experts can do the same thing.  It requires real discipline to not allow beliefs to interfere.  I read an article a while back about how studies of research by a major science organization found that many conclusions could not be duplicated.  They worried that people were fudging it.  It's one of the reasons we have peer reviews. 

It reminds me of the story of a scrupulously honest and religious judge who recused himself from a case just getting started.  He just didn't feel right about it and felt he was somehow being influenced in his decisions.  When he put on his suit jacket to leave the courthouse, he found an envelope with a bribe inside the jacket pocket that someone had slipped in there secretly without his knowledge.  Such is the power of bribes. 

[faberryman]

I don't recall which comment was Marks.  But I believe he's telling it as he sees it, or at least hope it is.  The problem is that many people including "experts" tend to find confirmation to support their beliefs.  Just like I find evidence to back up my point, and you find evidence to back up a contrarian point, experts can do the same thing.  It requires real discipline to not allow beliefs to interfere.  I read an article a while back about how studies of research by a major science organization found that many conclusions could not be duplicated.  They worried that people were fudging it.  It's one of the reasons we have peer reviews. 

It reminds me of the story of a scrupulously honest and religious judge who recused himself from a case just getting started.  He just didn't feel right about it and felt he was somehow being influenced in his decisions.  When he put on his suit jacket to leave the courthouse, he found an envelope with a bribe inside the jacket pocket that someone had slipped in there secretly without his knowledge.  Such is the power of bribes.

As expected, you quoted my post, and then gave us two paragraphs of non sequiturs. I'll ask again:

Is Dr. Peter Marks, whose opinion you quoted here and with which you said you agree, getting a direct or indirect payoff to render his opinion? Are his eyes being blinded?

[Alan Klein]

As expected, you quoted my post, and then gave us two paragraphs of non sequiturs. I'll ask again:

Is Dr. Peter Marks, whose opinion you quoted here and with which you said you agree, getting a direct or indirect payoff to render his opinion? Are his eyes being blinded?

I already said in #1289 that many experts I agree with take payoffs too.  Apparently, you're not reading my entire post, something you accuse me of.   How could I know whether the ones I quoted actually were falsely stating things?  I'm not a mind reader. I never even met them.  That's why I take all experts with a grain of salt.     

[LesPalenik]

Elon Musk just won the NASA contract to fly the astronauts to Moon. Which vaccine should they take?

[faberryman]

I already said in #1289 that many experts I agree with take payoffs too.

So the issue of whether an expert is taking a payoff is not a determining factor in your decision whom to believe.

Apparently, you're not reading my entire post, something you accuse me of.

I always read every word of your posts.

How could I know whether the ones I quoted actually were falsely stating things?  I'm not a mind reader. I never even met them. That's why I take all experts with a grain of salt.

There you go with that grain of salt business. You repeated yourself so I'll repeat myself:

I would note that that I think there is a difference between taking an expert's opinion with a grain of salt, and going on a multi-year crusade against the untrustworthiness of experts and their opinions, including alleging that some of the experts with whose opinions you disagree are taking payoffs for rendering such opinions.