CoVID-19 / SARS-CoV-2 Information and Questions

[Bluewater272]

Out of respect for the forum, and the rules, I’m not going to continue this, but here’s a few nuggets of wisdom.

• Cancelling an EUA for a product that is no longer needed or effective is not ‘blackballing’.
• Although it may seem mysterious and impossible to you, determining the effectiveness of an antibody against any particular target is rather trivial. Its kind of the point of an EUA. To be clear, Regeneron has already submitted a BLA to secure full approval for this product, and the FDA assigned it a priority review with an action date in about two months. Crying about this sounds like people who demand antibiotics for viral infections.
• No win situation for the guy who forged Darwin’s signature to get himself off the transplant list? No, that’s a long, painful version of assisted suicide. On one hand you have the low risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis in young males that is slightly above the background incidence rate. On the other hand, you have a man so close to death's doorstep that he's on a heart transplant list, and simply needs to get a vaccine to maintain his eligibility. Seems like an easy win to me.
• Bonus fun fact: One of the most basic requirements for being added to the transplant list is whether or not you are expected to comply with medical advice. Goes like this: What organ do you need? Do you actually need it? Will you listen to your doctors if you are allocated one?

Being uncertain about a fact is okay. There are resources everywhere to learn more, and a few folks around here who actually know what they're talking about.

 

[Adrian @ JB Solutions]

Out of respect for the forum, and the rules, I’m not going to continue this, but here’s a few nuggets of wisdom.

• Cancelling an EUA for a product that is no longer needed or effective is not ‘blackballing’.
• Although it may seem mysterious and impossible to you, determining the effectiveness of an antibody against any particular target is rather trivial. Its kind of the point of an EUA. To be clear, Regeneron has already submitted a BLA to secure full approval for this product, and the FDA assigned it a priority review with an action date in about two months. Crying about this sounds like people who demand antibiotics for viral infections.
• No win situation for the guy who forged Darwin’s signature to get himself off the transplant list? No, that’s a long, painful version of assisted suicide. On one hand you have the low risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis in young males that is slightly above the background incidence rate. On the other hand, you have a man so close to death's doorstep that he's on a heart transplant list, and simply needs to get a vaccine to maintain his eligibility. Seems like an easy win to me.
• Bonus fun fact: One of the most basic requirements for being added to the transplant list is whether or not you are expected to comply with medical advice. Goes like this: What organ do you need? Do you actually need it? Will you listen to your doctors if you are allocated one?

Being uncertain about a fact is okay. There are resources everywhere to learn more, and a few folks around here who actually know what they're talking about.

What about doctors pre-maturely declaring death to harvest your organs?

Bonus points for a bullet on hookers.

 

[Bluewater272]

I'm not going to engage in a discussion on a topic with someone ill-equipped to have it, especially where the straw man argument is rooted in a handful of examples of shitty doctors with even shittier oversight.

 

[Beachbummer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

Order of Magnitude increase in effort required to to dispel BS vs spreading it. and Some people don't even care for proof. How many still scream Earth is Flat, with "Flat-Earthers" all around the globe

If you really have that concern @adrianp89, pretend everyone else is a mindless sheep that is convinced otherwise, that indeed no person has been left to die or had treatment withheld in the last 20 years for organ harvesting by a doctor in the US while his condition was thought of as curable, and it's on YOU to prove that is not the case to change our minds. Perhaps seeking that info you find yourself changing your mind, or maybe you change ours, who knows.

 

[Beachbummer]

...Bonus points for a bullet on hookers. ...

I know it's stated as a joke (and smiley face confirms,) but I recall a report for a US doctor being invited to a Chinese transplant surgery some time ahead, when he inquired how they were so certain of the date he was told the organ was assured as an execution would provide it. I can't find a reference to my story, so maybe it's urban myth too, but here's some text on the topic

China’s Terrible Transplant Secret - Journal of Medical Ethics blog

Guest Post by Wendy Rogers Earlier this year, a Malaysian politician, Datuk Bung Moktar Radin, travelled to China to receive a kidney transplant. The details are scanty. There is no mention of the source of the kidney that the Malaysian MP received. Reports of foreigners travelling to China...

blogs.bmj.com

 

[Adrian @ JB Solutions]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

Order of Magnitude increase in effort required to to dispel BS vs spreading it. and Some people don't even care for proof. How many still scream Earth is Flat, with "Flat-Earthers" all around the globe

If you really have that concern @adrianp89, pretend everyone else is a mindless sheep that is convinced otherwise, that indeed no person has been left to die or had treatment withheld in the last 20 years for organ harvesting by a doctor in the US while his condition was thought of as curable, and it's on YOU to prove that is not the case to change our minds. Perhaps seeking that info you find yourself changing your mind, or maybe you change ours, who knows.

Took me about .5 seconds to find an example.

Patient Wakes Up as Doctors Get Ready to Remove Organs

A patient woke up just as doctors were about to harvest her organs for donation.

abcnews.go.com

Edit 1: Not quite the same but up the same alley:

Doctor charged in death of donor

A transplant surgeon is accused of attempting to hasten a patient's demise in order to make use of his organs.

www.latimes.com

Edit 2: This gets more disturbing the more I scroll down

https://nypost.com/2012/09/26/organs-taken-from-patients-that-doctors-were-pressured-to-declare-brain-dead-suit/

Intersting bit on China. Reminds me of the movie "The Island" (without the cloning of course).

 

[Beachbummer]

The first one is a good find. I will cheat and alter my earlier statement on what my belief is, because you have indeed altered it.

modified cheating statement from earlier:

If you really have that concern @adrianp89, pretend everyone else is a mindless sheep that is convinced otherwise, that indeed no person has *deliberately* been left to die or had treatment withheld in the last 20 years for organ harvesting by a doctor in the US while his condition was thought of as curable, and it's on YOU to prove that is not the case to change our minds. Perhaps seeking that info you find yourself changing your mind, or maybe you change ours, who knows. (I admit you have changed mine, although not enough to change my donor status, because cases seem to be very,very rare, but it shows mistakes can be made where it is likely this has happened in the past, even if not willingly.)

 

[crazy4life]

Fascinating discussion on Vaccines with Dr Paul Offit. Dr. Offit is director of the Vaccine Education Center at CHOP and an internationally recognized expert in the fields of virology and immunology. He is co-inventor of a landmark vaccine achievement for the prevention of rotavirus gastroenteritis. He also is on the FDA Advisory Commette on Vaccines. He discusses why he is against boosters for everyone among many other topics. Also interesting on how the FDA Advisory Committees voted on boosters and his vote on allowing natural infection to be as good as vaccinations.

Boosters for the young and healthy? Is Pharma dictating public health policy? What's up with VAERS? Did Robert Malone invent the mRNA technology?

 

[Mesa50]

Fascinating discussion on Vaccines with Dr Paul Offit. Dr. Offit is director of the Vaccine Education Center at CHOP and an internationally recognized expert in the fields of virology and immunology. He is co-inventor of a landmark vaccine achievement for the prevention of rotavirus gastroenteritis. He also is on the FDA Advisory Commette on Vaccines. He discusses why he is against boosters for everyone among many other topics. Also interesting on how the FDA Advisory Committees voted on boosters and his vote on allowing natural infection to be as good as vaccinations.

Boosters for the young and healthy? Is Pharma dictating public health policy? What's up with VAERS? Did Robert Malone invent the mRNA technology?

Nothing

Fascinating discussion on Vaccines with Dr Paul Offit. Dr. Offit is director of the Vaccine Education Center at CHOP and an internationally recognized expert in the fields of virology and immunology. He is co-inventor of a landmark vaccine achievement for the prevention of rotavirus gastroenteritis. He also is on the FDA Advisory Commette on Vaccines. He discusses why he is against boosters for everyone among many other topics. Also interesting on how the FDA Advisory Committees voted on boosters and his vote on allowing natural infection to be as good as vaccinations.

Boosters for the young and healthy? Is Pharma dictating public health policy? What's up with VAERS? Did Robert Malone invent the mRNA technology?

No one seems to have a response to the FDA advisory board guy who helped invent all sorts of vaccines, and told everyone to get the first 2 shots, and is now telling us that big pharma, the government, and the media are lying about the recommendation guidance on the third shot? Anyone find out if Dr Offit eats kittens for breakfast, so we can cancel him and pretend his credentials don’t matter?

 

[Adrian @ JB Solutions]

Credentials don't matter if it's against the narrative and what their science says.

 

[tabbibus]

Been to busy to watch that. What I can tell you first hand is to repeat my report from last week.

3 vaccinated covids in the ICU, all other non vaccinated. Of the 3, one had lymphoma and had 3 shots. His chemo meds would render his immune system unable to respond to vaccines sadly.

the other two did not have boosters.

I'll take a look at the video when I get a chance.

 

[Troch1]

Nothing

No one seems to have a response to the FDA advisory board guy who helped invent all sorts of vaccines, and told everyone to get the first 2 shots, and is now telling us that big pharma, the government, and the media are lying about the recommendation guidance on the third shot? Anyone find out if Dr Offit eats kittens for breakfast, so we can cancel him and pretend his credentials don’t matter?

You are upset that people on a boating forum didn't sit through more than an hour interview to share their thoughts with you?

I sat through the first 25 minutes. It was a well done interview and lots of good points were brought up. What more do you want? It's ONE legit guy's opinion based on his interpretation of the science. The advisory panel (which it sounds like he hasn't been on 20 years) is tasked with taking best available science and translating that into a public health recommendation. From a public health perspective, decisions have to be made in best interest of largest group of people. EVERY decision is informed by the science, but inevitably there is uncertainty. The hope is that if you bring together the right variety of panel members, you minimize your risk of harm and maximize the benefit to society. Dr. Offit specifically calls out that he has no public health background, and that's OK...he wasn't the only guy on the panel...you need competent members who draw from different perspectives to arrive at the best decision. Seems to me that everyone is doing the best they can with the information they have available.

 

[Jim_in_Delaware]

Nothing

No one seems to have a response to the FDA advisory board guy who helped invent all sorts of vaccines, and told everyone to get the first 2 shots, and is now telling us that big pharma, the government, and the media are lying about the recommendation guidance on the third shot? Anyone find out if Dr Offit eats kittens for breakfast, so we can cancel him and pretend his credentials don’t matter?

Okay, I give it a shot. Let me prefix by saying this is just my personal opinion and I am not speaking for anyone except myself.

I'll start off by explaining the FDA review process as I do have a little bit of knowledge about this. The FDA divisions are staffed with M.D.'s and PhD's and these folks (with the concurrence of senior management) make the determination whether new drugs or vaccines are safe and effective and should be approved for use. They do NOT set the prices for products they review. As I previously posted, the FDA doesn't make their decisions in a vacuum. It is a science-based Agency and decisions are guided by the work of other Agencies, like the NIH and CDC, findings from Academia, and data submitted by industry (which undergoes extensive review by the Agency.) They also often use advisory committees, composed of experts outside the FDA to get their advice on new drugs and vaccines. The FDA is not bound by the votes of an advisory committee, and will sometimes (rarely) approve a product against the vote of an advisory committee, if they think it is in the best interest of the public to do so.

That said, I watched about 30 minutes of the video. I don't recall Dr. Offit saying "...that big pharma, the government, and the media are lying about the recommendation guidance on the third shot." From the video segments I watched, Dr. Offit basically said that he had not seen evidence to support the boosting all folks above the age of 18. Let me add that Dr. Offit certainly has the credentials and is entitled to his opinion/conclusions.

Lets break it further into parts:

Big pharma - lets not mince words, they are in business to make money. Although I'm sure they want to sell as much product as possible (lord knows they do enough advertising on TV!), they do not approved the products or set public policy for the use of the products. It actually pisses me off a bit when a CEO is interviewed on TV and says sometime akin to the statement "everyone needs to get boosted", prior to anyone outside the company reviewing the data, and I feel that such a statement is out of line, at least at that point in time.

The Govenment - not sure which part we are talking about? Let's start with the President. My personal opinion is that he jumped the gun with the announcement on boosters, as the data and the reviews had not yet been completed. Regarding the FDA , I think they did the review of the data for safety and efficacy that was requested. Keep in mind that the FDA does NOT set vaccine policy.

I always get a kick out of the complaints about the mainstream media. Lets take a look at the alternate media like Fox News. Many of their shows are classified by Fox as "entertainment", due to liability issues. I would offer, however, that many times their viewers do not make the distinction between "news" and "entertainment" and believe what the host of the show says even if it is not "news".

Respectfully, statements like, "Anyone find out if Dr Offit eats kittens for breakfast, so we can cancel him and pretend his credentials don’t matter?" are part of the problem with having an honest, open, discussion on a topic like this. I know that I personally can have great respect for a person, can value the position they may take, even if I may or may not agree with their conclusions. Invoking "cancel culture" is the lazy way out of what could potentially be a meaningful conversation.

Jim

 

[crazy4life]

You are upset that people on a boating forum didn't sit through more than an hour interview to share their thoughts with you?

I sat through the first 25 minutes. It was a well done interview and lots of good points were brought up. What more do you want? It's ONE legit guy's opinion based on his interpretation of the science. The advisory panel (which it sounds like he hasn't been on 20 years) is tasked with taking best available science and translating that into a public health recommendation. From a public health perspective, decisions have to be made in best interest of largest group of people. EVERY decision is informed by the science, but inevitably there is uncertainty. The hope is that if you bring together the right variety of panel members, you minimize your risk of harm and maximize the benefit to society. Dr. Offit specifically calls out that he has no public health background, and that's OK...he wasn't the only guy on the panel...you need competent members who draw from different perspectives to arrive at the best decision. Seems to me that everyone is doing the best they can with the information they have available.

Dr. Office is on the current FDA advisory committee for vaccines. That committee voted 16 to 1 to not recommend boosters for everyone over the age of 18. His point was that he does not think the politics should interfere with the science, a second advisory committee vote was taken and voted overwhelmingly in favor of not recommending boosters for everyone over the age of 18. The FDA chose to recommend boosters for everyoneover the age of 18. Please watch the video carefully and try not to miss quote or Miss interpret what the doctor has said. He is in favor of boosters from the age of 65 and up and maybe he would would recommend boosters for age 50 and up for people with comorbidities but there is no data that shows the benefit of boosters from the age of 12 to 50. Watching a video and then coming to completely opposite conclusions of what the good doctor has saiid just shows the bias of the person watching the discussion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

 

[crazy4life]

Big pharma - lets not mince words, they are in business to make money. Although I'm sure they want to sell as much product as possible (lord knows they do enough advertising on TV!), they do not approved the products or set public policy for the use of the products. It actually pisses me off a bit when a CEO is interviewed on TV and says sometime akin to the statement "everyone needs to get boosted", prior to anyone outside the company reviewing the data, and I feel that such a statement is out of line, at least at that point in time.

The Govenment - not sure which part we are talking about? Let's start with the President. My personal opinion is that he jumped the gun with the announcement on boosters, as the data and the reviews had not yet been completed. Regarding the FDA , I think they did the review of the data for safety and efficacy that was requested. Keep in mind that the FDA does NOT set vaccine policy.

Jim

The above statements are spot on in my opinion. Not that that means anything.

 

[Jim_in_Delaware]

There is no question that the virus is a very complex issue to deal with. We have two vaccines that were astoundingly effective against the original virus. As the virus mutates (which most viruses do over time), the concern becomes will the vaccines still be effective against the new variants of the virus? Given that immunity may diminish over time, do you give boosters to maintain the level of immunity?

Could be that boosting will help defend against a future variant. Could be that boosting may not be so effective against that variant. Do you wait months for the data to come in? If you have a vaccine that has been shown to be relatively safe and the efficacy unknown on future variants, do you go ahead and boost if there are readily supplies of the boosters available?

WHO has a different position on boosters for the general population than most well to do countries and one needs to understand this to understand their position on boosters. Their position is not to boost the general population, as the world (as a whole) would be better off if those doses of vaccines were sent to countries where initial vaccination rates are low.

Jim

 

[Mesa50]

Dr. Office is on the current FDA advisory committee for vaccines. That committee voted 16 to 1 to not recommend boosters for everyone over the age of 18. His point was that he does not think the politics should interfere with the science, a second advisory committee vote was taken and voted overwhelmingly in favor of not recommending boosters for everyone over the age of 18. The FDA chose to recommend boosters for everyoneover the age of 18. Please watch the video carefully and try not to miss quote or Miss interpret what the doctor has said. He is in favor of boosters from the age of 65 and up and maybe he would would recommend boosters for age 50 and up for people with comorbidities but there is no data that shows the benefit of boosters from the age of 12 to 50. Watching a video and then coming to completely opposite conclusions of what the good doctor has saiid just shows the bias of the person watching the discussion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

You are upset that people on a boating forum didn't sit through more than an hour interview to share their thoughts with you?

I sat through the first 25 minutes. It was a well done interview and lots of good points were brought up. What more do you want? It's ONE legit guy's opinion based on his interpretation of the science. The advisory panel (which it sounds like he hasn't been on 20 years) is tasked with taking best available science and translating that into a public health recommendation. From a public health perspective, decisions have to be made in best interest of largest group of people. EVERY decision is informed by the science, but inevitably there is uncertainty. The hope is that if you bring together the right variety of panel members, you minimize your risk of harm and maximize the benefit to society. Dr. Offit specifically calls out that he has no public health background, and that's OK...he wasn't the only guy on the panel...you need competent members who draw from different perspectives to arrive at the best decision. Seems to me that everyone is doing the best they can with the information they have available.

There is zero inference of him being on the advisory 20 years ago. This is just a false assertion, and an attempt on your part to discredit him. He is currently on the advisory board, and in public health. He says in the first couple minutes “The FDA advisory committee, of which I am a voting member”…..and then explains how “we” voted 16 to 1 against boosters for all. He said that there is no evidence that a 3rd dose provides any extra protection for heathy people, and that in their 2nd meeting they suggested boosters for people over 65 and over 50 with comorbidities. He also states that there is no evidence a 3rd dose provides healthy young people with any extra protection against major illness at all. He goes on to say that continual boosting is a bad idea, and that you only get about a 90 day spike in protection with a booster and that if it is effective against omicron it’s only against minor illness. You must have missed the good part. I really have a hard time understanding why people try to discredit everyone who challenges their beliefs.

 

[Mesa50]

There is no question that the virus is a very complex issue to deal with. We have two vaccines that were astoundingly effective against the original virus. As the virus mutates (which most viruses do over time), the concern becomes will the vaccines still be effective against the new variants of the virus? Given that immunity may diminish over time, do you give boosters to maintain the level of immunity?

Could be that boosting will help defend against a future variant. Could be that boosting may not be so effective against that variant. Do you wait months for the data to come in? If you have a vaccine that has been shown to be relatively safe and the efficacy unknown on future variants, do you go ahead and boost if there are readily supplies of the boosters available?

WHO has a different position on boosters for the general population than most well to do countries and one needs to understand this to understand their position on boosters. Their position is not to boost the general population, as the world (as a whole) would be better off if those doses of vaccines were sent to countries where initial vaccination rates are low.

Jim

I would think that unless an entirely new virus is spread, it will continue to get weaker. This will make vaccination against variants less and less necessary. Basic high school biology taught us that mutations always and without fail make an organism weaker. If CV19 is mutating it will become weaker and weaker with every mutation, until it is finally just like a summer sneeze. I don’t know which stupid news organizations began making people think that a mutated virus became more deadly. If it did, it’s a completely different virus. If CV19 is becoming more powerful with each variant, we’ve got bigger problems than the disease, because that probably means new viruses are being intentionally introduced. I suppose one of the worst case scenarios is that CV19 says just the way it is with all three variants forever. Hopefully it will continue to mutate, leaving it’s stronger previous versions behind.

 

[Bruce]

With all the booster discussion it would be good to look at real world data instead of opinions. In this data from Alberta Canada boosted 80+ year olds were less likely to be hospitalized than unvaccinated 12 to 29 year olds. Double vaccinated 60 to 69 year olds were also less likely to be hospitalized than unvaccinated 12 to 29 year olds. Boosters conveyed the most benefit to those 70+ while double vaccination conveyed huge benefit to all completely eliminating hospitalization for those under 12. This method of reporting clearly shows benefit increasing with each dose and through each age category.




Similar, but less timely and detailed data from our own CDC.






And finally from the UK NHS.

 

[Troch1]

There is zero inference of him being on the advisory 20 years ago. This is just a false assertion, and an attempt on your part to discredit him. He is currently on the advisory board, and in public health. He says in the first couple minutes “The FDA advisory committee, of which I am a voting member”…..and then explains how “we” voted 16 to 1 against boosters for all. He said that there is no evidence that a 3rd dose provides any extra protection for heathy people, and that in their 2nd meeting they suggested boosters for people over 65 and over 50 with comorbidities. He also states that there is no evidence a 3rd dose provides healthy young people with any extra protection against major illness at all. He goes on to say that continual boosting is a bad idea, and that you only get about a 90 day spike in protection with a booster and that if it is effective against omicron it’s only against minor illness. You must have missed the good part. I really have a hard time understanding why people try to discredit everyone who challenges their beliefs.

I apologize for getting the good doctor’s voting status wrong. I was incorrect. I DID go on to call him legit and in no way discredited him. I found him credible and stated that the portion of the interview I watched brought up good points. I still stand by the mantra that there’s more to public health policy than strict science. In my opinion, the policies being made are thought to be the best for the country as a whole AT the time they are being made. The process is sound Will things change as more data is analyzed? I can guarantee it. That doesn’t make today’s policies wrong.