Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine

[Alan Klein]

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

Let me tell you a little story that would clarify my point about trusting experts and witnesses to truth.  Before I moved to NJ 8 years ago, I was living in NYC, the boro of Queens.  I was called for Federal jury duty at the Eastern District in Brooklyn.  It turned out it was a Mafia case where a few guys were charged with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and a few other acts of miscellaneous mischief, mostly against other gangsters.  There were over two hundred prospective jurors.  Everyone was given a number.  Names were kept secret and not used.  We all had to fill out a 30-40 page questionnaire relating to the case and our personal beliefs.  One of the questions was "Could you believe a convict as a juror testifying for the government"  I didn't like the answers you could check like yes, no, and don't know.  I wrote on the side - It depends.

Unlike most juror screening at civil trial where everyone pretty much all sits around, each prospective juror was called separately to the very courthouse where the actual trial would be held.  I had to sit in the witness box and swear to tell the truth.  The defendants were sitting in the court along with their half dozen lawyers,. Also present was four government prosecutors, all considerably younger than me.  There were about half dozen armed marshalls. It was very intense.  The judge asked all the questions that were given to him previously by each side.  He finally got around to asking me what I meant by It Depends?

I told him if I was in jail, and was promised to get out early if I testified, put in a witness protection program, and sent to New Mexico to sit by a pool for the rest of my life, free,  drinking Pina Coladas, I might lie to help the prosecution, or at least embellish the truth.  So as a juror I couldn't believe a witness like that.  However, if the prosecutors, and I pointed to the four of them and looked them in their eyes, could come up with a number of witnesses who were in different jails who could independently corroborate each other's testimony, then it might be more believable.

I wasn't chosen as one of the jurors. The actual trial went on for about 6 weeks.  The jury found them all guilty.

I hope that clarifies how I look at things.

[faberryman]

Let me tell you a little story that would clarify my point about trusting experts and witnesses to truth.  Before I moved to NJ 8 years ago, I was living in NYC, the boro of Queens.  I was called for Federal jury duty at the Eastern District in Brooklyn.  It turned out it was a Mafia case where a few guys were charged with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and a few other acts of miscellaneous mischief, mostly against other gangsters.  There were over two hundred prospective jurors.  Everyone was given a number.  Names were kept secret and not used.  We all had to fill out a 30-40 page questionnaire relating to the case and our personal beliefs.  One of the questions was "Could you believe a convict as a juror testifying for the government"  I didn't like the answers you could check like yes, no, and don't know.  I wrote on the side - It depends.

Unlike most juror screening at civil trial where everyone pretty much all sits around, each prospective juror was called separately to the very courthouse where the actual trial would be held.  I had to sit in the witness box and swear to tell the truth.  The defendants were sitting in the court along with their half dozen lawyers,. Also present was four government prosecutors, all considerably younger than me.  There were about half dozen armed marshalls. It was very intense.  The judge asked all the questions that were given to him previously by each side.  He finally got around to asking me what I meant by It Depends?

I told him if I was in jail, and was promised to get out early if I testified, put in a witness protection program, and sent to New Mexico to sit by a pool for the rest of my life, free,  drinking Pina Coladas, I might lie to help the prosecution, or at least embellish the truth.  So as a juror I couldn't believe a witness like that.  However, if the prosecutors, and I pointed to the four of them and looked them in their eyes, could come up with a number of witnesses who were in different jails who could independently corroborate each other's testimony, then it might be more believable.

I wasn't chosen as one of the jurors. The actual trial went on for about 6 weeks.  The jury found them all guilty.

I hope that clarifies how I look at things.

My takeaway from that story is that you believe that because you would be willing to rat out the mob in exchange for being released from prison and enrolled in the witness protection program, experts can't be trusted.

And yet:

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

It is an interesting contradiction. As I noted above, it would appear that the issue of whether an expert is taking a payoff is not a determining factor in your decision whom to believe.

Also present was four government prosecutors, all considerably younger than me.

The foregoing sentence from your post really intrigues me.

[Alan Klein]

Just when I thought it was safe to go out again.  Here we go with blood types again.

If You Have This Blood Type, You're More Likely to Get Blood Clots
RESEARCH HAS ESTABLISHED A LINK BETWEEN THIS BLOOD TYPE AND BLOOD CLOTTING RISK.
https://bestlifeonline.com/blood-type-blood-clots-news/

[Robert Roaldi]

Just when I thought it was safe to go out again.  Here we go with blood types again.

If You Have This Blood Type, You're More Likely to Get Blood Clots
RESEARCH HAS ESTABLISHED A LINK BETWEEN THIS BLOOD TYPE AND BLOOD CLOTTING RISK.
https://bestlifeonline.com/blood-type-blood-clots-news/

That's an interesting article. It says "researchers" and "the study says", things like that but it never provides a reference. Was there one study? were there several? from which journal? It's an odd bit of reporting. Unless that information is confirmed by trusted sources (CDC, Mayo clinic, etc.), I wouldn't put too much credence in it.

[LesPalenik]

Just when I thought it was safe to go out again.  Here we go with blood types again.

If You Have This Blood Type, You're More Likely to Get Blood Clots
RESEARCH HAS ESTABLISHED A LINK BETWEEN THIS BLOOD TYPE AND BLOOD CLOTTING RISK.
https://bestlifeonline.com/blood-type-blood-clots-news/

Alan, out of all people who don't like to read the linked articles, you could have put it right into your first line.
For the benefit of others, here it is: Best blood - type O, 2nd best type A, worst for blood clotting - type B.

BTW, association of type A and B as a risk factor for venous thromboembolism has been known for many years, so it is not necessarily linked to the current versions of the C19 vaccines.

April 2013:
The prevalence of non-O blood group and inherited thrombophilia (deficiencies of natural anticoagulants, factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A mutation) was assessed in a series of 712 consecutive patients with proximal deep vein thrombosis of the lower limbs who were referred to our Institution between 2004 and 2010, and in 712 age- and gender-matched healthy volunteers. Odds ratios (OR) of deep vein thrombosis and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed for non-O group and thrombophilia, both separately and in combination.

A non-O blood group was present in 492 cases and 358 controls (OR 2.21; 95% CI, 1.78 to 2.75). A thrombophilic abnormality was present in 237 cases and 105 controls (OR 2.82; 2.18 to 3.66). The combination of non-O group and thrombophilia was present in 152 cases and 51 controls (OR 7.06; 4.85 to 10.28).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3626477/

[faberryman]

I thought the two most important sentences in the article were this one in the first paragraph:

"That vaccine aside, there are other risk factors for blood clots it's worth being aware of."

which is the giveaway that the article isn't about the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, and:

"If You Have This Blood Type, Your Dementia Risk Is High, Study Says."

which is actually a link to a another article to give you something else to worry about.

If that weren't enough, that article contains this sentence which is a link to yet another article to give you even more to worry about:

"If You Have Type A Blood, You're at Higher Risk for This Kind of Cancer."

My suggestion is you avoid reading articles on this site, or you are going to be needing to visit your psychiatrist for some Xanax, or your insurance agent for one of those final expense policies, or both.

[Robert Roaldi]

Alan, out of all people who don't like to read the linked articles, you could have put it right into your first line.
For the benefit of others, here it is: Best blood - type O, 2nd best type A, worst for blood clotting - type B.

BTW, association of type A and B as a risk factor for venous thromboembolism has been known for many years, so it is not necessarily linked to the current versions of the C19 vaccines.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3626477/

Thanks, you put it better than I did. I think this article conveys zero useful information. The "links" to Covid vaccines, reading carefully, are via innuendo.


Alan, as has been suggested above, there are much better sources of information online, you'd be better off avoiding inflammatory articles like this one. They may exist to drop cookies onto your computer that enables them to sell you stuff later. If your self-image is as "rebel" and (or) "contrarian", as you have previously stated, that's fine, but for that to work you need a top drawer bullshit detector. "Alternative" is not necessarily good, sometimes it's a con.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

FAUCISM!

 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...

[Alan Klein]

This expert agrees with me. 

EU regulator finds possible blood clot link with J&J vaccine, but says benefits outweigh risks

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/20/covid-vaccine-ema-says-jj-shot-can-be-rolled-out-across-eu.html

[TechTalk]

That benefit outweighs potential risk is very likely the decision that all of the global public health agencies will reach based on currently public data. The prudent course of action, when a safety signal of a rare event is found in a new and emergency use authorization vaccine or therapy, is to recommend a pause while the data is examined and evaluated; inform the public; insure that the public and healthcare providers know what symptoms to watch for; and issue guidance to healthcare providers on proper diagnoses and treatment if symptoms are found.

[Alan Klein]

That benefit outweighs potential risk is very likely the decision that all of the global public health agencies will reach based on currently public data. The prudent course of action, when a safety signal of a rare event is found in a new and emergency use authorization vaccine or therapy, is to recommend a pause while the data is examined and evaluated; inform the public; insure that the public and healthcare providers know what symptoms to watch for; and issue guidance to healthcare providers on proper diagnoses and treatment if symptoms are found.

That's not what the non-Fauci expert said.  He said it should have not been paused. So we have a conflict in opinions among different experts. Frankly, the worse measure was Fauci stopping them due to one death.  That was dumb.  But Fauci is a politician and always errs on being politically correct. 

[faberryman]

That's not what the non-Fauci expert said.  He said it should have not been paused. So we have a conflict in opinions among different experts. Frankly, the worse measure was Fauci stopping them due to one death.  That was dumb.  But Fauci is a politician and always errs on being politically correct.

Why do you single Fauci out? It was the FDA and the CDC which recommended the pause, not the NIAID. You appear to have a vendetta against Fauci for reasons you say you can't even remember. If you don't like the decision, the least you can do is blame the right people. The individuals who issued the statement recommending the pause were Dr. Peter Marks, Director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, and Dr. Anne Schuchat, Principal Deputy Director of the CDC.

If you haven't read the statement, you can do so on the FDA website here:

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/joint-cdc-and-fda-statement-johnson-johnson-covid-19-vaccine

The press event announcing the decision and answering media questions can be accessed on the FDA's YouTube channel here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ELXnGYgsJY

[TechTalk]

That's not what the non-Fauci expert said.  He said it should have not been paused.

No. He didn't say "it should have not been paused." You may believe that "Dr. Reynold Panettieri, a pulmonary physician and a professor of medicine at Rutgers University", who was quoted in the article you linked was implying that, but it was NOT what he said. He was quoted discussing the rarity of the condition, that there are a variety of causes, that it shouldn't cause worry, and "the single most important thing people can do is get vaccinated”. Beyond that, quoting him as having said "it should have not been paused" is your misquote based on a biased spin of his actual words quoted. In fact, according to a local news source, he believes that the pause was the right thing to do.

"Dr. Reynold Panettieri, vice chancellor and director at the Rutgers Institute for Translational Medicine and Science and a professor at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, believes this pause is the right course of action."

https://nj1015.com/Dr. Reynold Panettieri believes pause is the right course

This doesn't conflict with statements from the FDA, CDC, or Fauci. They have also stated that it is a rare combination of conditions; not a cause for alarm; and have never wavered in telling the public that the important thing is for people to get vaccinated.

At present, there are two other vaccines that are in much wider production and distribution than the J&J vaccine and which can take up any current slack.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

That benefit outweighs potential risk is very likely the decision that all of the global public health agencies will reach based on currently public data. The prudent course of action, when a safety signal of a rare event is found in a new and emergency use authorization vaccine or therapy, is to recommend a pause while the data is examined and evaluated; inform the public; insure that the public and healthcare providers know what symptoms to watch for; and issue guidance to healthcare providers on proper diagnoses and treatment if symptoms are found.

+1

[TechTalk]

That was dumb.  But Fauci is a politician and always errs on being politically correct.

Somehow, I suspect that you are happily unaware of how large a role "dumb and political" Dr. Fauci has played in the efforts which led to the creation of the Moderna vaccine that is currently providing you with protection from COVID-19. Your feelings create a rather large blind spot.

[Alan Klein]

Why do you single Fauci out? It was the FDA and the CDC which recommended the pause, not the NIAID. You appear to have a vendetta against Fauci for reasons you say you can't even remember. If you don't like the decision, the least you can do is blame the right people. The individuals who issued the statement recommending the pause were Dr. Peter Marks, Director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, and Dr. Anne Schuchat, Principal Deputy Director of the CDC.

If you haven't read the statement, you can do so on the FDA website here:

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/joint-cdc-and-fda-statement-johnson-johnson-covid-19-vaccine

The press event announcing the decision and answering media questions can be accessed on the FDA's YouTube channel here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ELXnGYgsJY

Fauci was the face of the news of the cancellation.  It was he who was broadcasting the decision that I saw on regular broadcast TV.  Nobody knows who those other two guys are.  Regular people don't read fda press announcements. 

[Alan Klein]

No. He didn't say "it should have not been paused." You may believe that "Dr. Reynold Panettieri, a pulmonary physician and a professor of medicine at Rutgers University", who was quoted in the article you linked was implying that, but it was NOT what he said. He was quoted discussing the rarity of the condition, that there are a variety of causes, that it shouldn't cause worry, and "the single most important thing people can do is get vaccinated”. Beyond that, quoting him as having said "it should have not been paused" is your misquote based on a biased spin of his actual words quoted. In fact, according to a local news source, he believes that the pause was the right thing to do.

"Dr. Reynold Panettieri, vice chancellor and director at the Rutgers Institute for Translational Medicine and Science and a professor at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, believes this pause is the right course of action."

https://nj1015.com/Dr. Reynold Panettieri believes pause is the right course

This doesn't conflict with statements from the FDA, CDC, or Fauci. They have also stated that it is a rare combination of conditions; not a cause for alarm; and have never wavered in telling the public that the important thing is for people to get vaccinated.

At present, there are two other vaccines that are in much wider production and distribution than the J&J vaccine and which can take up any current slack.

How do people who had the appointments canceled because they were scheduled to take Johnson's vaccine suppose to get the shot?  They now go to the end of the line and have to make re-appointments.  Many places only have the Johnson vaccine so they can't immediately substitute. The other vaccines have to be distributed to them or the person has to make an appointment somewhere else which is a difficult thing to do.

Also, how is their cancellation of the vaccine going to encourage people sitting on the fence to get any vaccine shot at all?  It just creates more doubt in many people that they shouldn't get them.  It was a terrible and counterproductive decision that put more people at risk from getting Covid than the potential lives saved from blood clots that may be caused by Johnson's vaccine.   

[Robert Roaldi]

How do people who had the appointments canceled because they were scheduled to take Johnson's vaccine suppose to get the shot?  They now go to the end of the line and have to make re-appointments.  Many places only have the Johnson vaccine so they can't immediately substitute. The other vaccines have to be distributed to them or the person has to make an appointment somewhere else which is a difficult thing to do.

Also, how is their cancellation of the vaccine going to encourage people sitting on the fence to get any vaccine shot at all?  It just creates more doubt in many people that they shouldn't get them.  It was a terrible and counterproductive decision that put more people at risk from getting Covid than the potential lives saved from blood clots that may be caused by Johnson's vaccine.   

This might the third or fourth iteration of this. We know what you think. Not many people agree with you, and you will just have to come to terms with that.

[Alan Klein]

This might the third or fourth iteration of this. We know what you think. Not many people agree with you, and you will just have to come to terms with that.

My beliefs are not dependent on what others think.