Coronavirus Outbreak

[silentreader]

As the article noted, the difference last year (before vaccines) between Red and Blue counties was neligible.

I could not read the article since it was behind a paywall. Might be better in the future not to post articles behind paywalls.

The is NYT, so I will wait to see if their numbers are real or made up.

Two ways that I get past paywalls.

First, try to open the article in an “incognito tab” using Chrome which often works.
Second, copy and past the URL into a website like http://outline.com which strips out the cookies,ads, and garbage and usually lets you view the text.

I don’t know if any of those work with the NYT since I have a subscription through work. But that is how I generally view things that are paywalled. There are a few paywalls that are pretty uncrackable, but those two methods work with the majority. And no, I don’t feel guilty using either one. Paywalls usually rely on the web site putting cookies on your machine without asking. I feel no need to accommodate that sort of behavior by corporate web sites.

"This url not supported by outline."

[Ken]

I could not read the article since it was behind a paywall. Might be better in the future not to post articles behind paywalls.

The is NYT, so I will wait to see if their numbers are real or made up.

Two ways that I get past paywalls.

First, try to open the article in an “incognito tab” using Chrome which often works.
Second, copy and past the URL into a website like http://outline.com which strips out the cookies,ads, and garbage and usually lets you view the text.

I don’t know if any of those work with the NYT since I have a subscription through work. But that is how I generally view things that are paywalled. There are a few paywalls that are pretty uncrackable, but those two methods work with the majority. And no, I don’t feel guilty using either one. Paywalls usually rely on the web site putting cookies on your machine without asking. I feel no need to accommodate that sort of behavior by corporate web sites.

"This url not supported by outline."

OK then, NYT is more sophisticated. But you will find a lot of newspaper paywalls will be readable with outline. Especially local papers. It’s just trial and error.

[nett]

http://ww11.doh.state.fl.us/comm/_partn ... latest.pdf

Vaccine impact doesn't look statistically significant to me based on this report.

Can you share your calculations?

Or are you claiming you can just look at that and know whether or not it is statistically significant at a given confidence level? Do you know what statistical significance is and how it is computed?

There is a section of the report called vaccine impact. The two data points don't appear correlated based on those graphs.

[Ernie]

The problem is that Ivermectin, Remdesivir, and Hydrodcychloroquine also all have had fetal cell line HEK-293 used in their testing (as have virtually every modern medicine including aspirin, Tylenol, ibuprofen, Sudafed, Benadryl, Lidocaine, Pepto Bismol, Maalox, Tums, Lipitor, Toprol, etc., etc., etc.). To be consistent on this point, you'd have to reject almost any medicine that has been developed or tested over the past 50 years.

Dan, Tylenol for example was developed long before the use of fetal cells, correct. So any testing of pharmaceuticals in more recent years was not used in the development of the drug, correct? Therefore it is not quite the same comparison, right?

[Soloist]

The problem is that Ivermectin, Remdesivir, and Hydrodcychloroquine also all have had fetal cell line HEK-293 used in their testing (as have virtually every modern medicine including aspirin, Tylenol, ibuprofen, Sudafed, Benadryl, Lidocaine, Pepto Bismol, Maalox, Tums, Lipitor, Toprol, etc., etc., etc.). To be consistent on this point, you'd have to reject almost any medicine that has been developed or tested over the past 50 years.

Dan, Tylenol for example was developed long before the use of fetal cells, correct. So any testing of pharmaceuticals in more recent years was not used in the development of the drug, correct? Therefore it is not quite the same comparison, right?

So was Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. If we seek to tie post "FDA" approval testing to medications, we might as well tie it to vitamins and food too. I've posted it elsewhere but that Catholic priest in that article asked a doctor who found some pages on it. Most of them referenced predated the HEK-293 cell line. This was discussed more then once on here with relevant links to the information. If you merely are looking for testing period... well then you could safely throw out even implants and become a faith healer.
I've set a line of 1980 for what I use and do not use as HEK-293 was not used for pharmaceutical testing prior to that. The exact date is unclear and if I want to use a medication after 1980, like a vaccine, I go to the source information to assess it. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/ ... /index.cfm

This is a very popular argument, but flawed.

[Szdfan]

As the article noted, the difference last year (before vaccines) between Red and Blue counties was neligible.

I could not read the article since it was behind a paywall. Might be better in the future not to post articles behind paywalls.

The is NYT, so I will wait to see if their numbers are real or made up.

I don't know who Charles Gaba is, but he's using Johns Hopkins data.

https://acasignups.net/21/11/08/weekly- ... ation-rate

Basic point -- counties with the lower vaccination rates have higher COVID hospitalization and death rates per 100,000 than counties that have higher vaccination rates. Counties that voted heavily for Trump tend to have lower vaccination rates than counties that voted heavily for Biden.



I'll keep poking around.

[Ken]

The problem is that Ivermectin, Remdesivir, and Hydrodcychloroquine also all have had fetal cell line HEK-293 used in their testing (as have virtually every modern medicine including aspirin, Tylenol, ibuprofen, Sudafed, Benadryl, Lidocaine, Pepto Bismol, Maalox, Tums, Lipitor, Toprol, etc., etc., etc.). To be consistent on this point, you'd have to reject almost any medicine that has been developed or tested over the past 50 years.

Dan, Tylenol for example was developed long before the use of fetal cells, correct. So any testing of pharmaceuticals in more recent years was not used in the development of the drug, correct? Therefore it is not quite the same comparison, right?

Seems to me like a distinction without a difference.

Like you are saying that you could never buy or live in a house that was built by slaves. But you are fine living in a house that gets cleaned by slaves.

But you can rationalize whatever you want I guess. We all do the same thing at some level.

[Bootstrap]

The problem is that Ivermectin, Remdesivir, and Hydrodcychloroquine also all have had fetal cell line HEK-293 used in their testing (as have virtually every modern medicine including aspirin, Tylenol, ibuprofen, Sudafed, Benadryl, Lidocaine, Pepto Bismol, Maalox, Tums, Lipitor, Toprol, etc., etc., etc.). To be consistent on this point, you'd have to reject almost any medicine that has been developed or tested over the past 50 years.

Dan, Tylenol for example was developed long before the use of fetal cells, correct. So any testing of pharmaceuticals in more recent years was not used in the development of the drug, correct? Therefore it is not quite the same comparison, right?

Seems to me like a distinction without a difference.

Like you are saying that you could never buy or live in a house that was built by slaves. But you are fine living in a house that gets cleaned by slaves.

But you can rationalize whatever you want I guess. We all do the same thing at some level.

I agree. If I objected to using vaccines because they are tested with HEK-293, then I would object to anything tested with HEK-293, wouldn't I? Why would this be immoral for initial testing but perfectly moral for testing after initially going to market? I don't understand the ethical reasoning.

[Soloist]

I agree. If I objected to using vaccines because they are tested with HEK-293, then I would object to anything tested with HEK-293, wouldn't I? Why would this be immoral for initial testing but perfectly moral for testing after initially going to market? I don't understand the ethical reasoning.

A line has to be drawn at some point and I have chosen this point.

The same question could be asked as to why the Amish use propane washers or why Nationwide doesn't use internet except at the library.

The reasons have been given and expressed compared to a car and I will express it again for your benefit.

An F150 is produced in 2000. You buy the car brand new. 5 years later you go to buy another F150. You find out they tested the new 2005 model on live humans with crash testing rather then crash dummies. You decide rather then buying a new model, you buy a used 2000 model that is less used then yours.
The company isn't ethical, but the original car still is.

You can choose to take a stand, but so far I don't see you two taking a stand on fetal cell use at any level so you are entirely consistent.
As they say, the only consistent stance is no stance at all.

One could argue that we need to start back before the polio vaccine and object to anything made after that point but one could make arguments addressing why that has some ethical flaw too. Also no one said post testing is ethical or acceptable.


For a thought experiment, Vitamin C is naturally occurring in Rose buds and other sources. A company decides they want to produce a pill with Vit-C in it. Nothing wrong yet right? Now years after they decide they want to do testing on a new cell line and sell the drug for new uses as well.
In the argument against those who have taken a stand, Vitamin C is now unethical. Many mainstream OTCs are sold by many different companies, so if I felt, for example, the makers of Tylenol were unethical, I could use one of various offbrands of Acetaminophen. That being said, most of the post testing isn't done by the producer but rather other scientists not necessarily affiliated. Really it comes down to how much research you personally wish to do or not do to make a determination of your personal ethics.

Another stand could be taken simply objecting to use of any new cell line use, which you declined to agree to, Boot, in a past discussion on this very subject. Ultimately, you can condemn a stance you don't understand, or you can attempt to understand it. As I've said before, I don't even use ivermectin/hydroxychloroquine anyway and don't see myself doing so unless I have parasites/risk of parasites. As for the animal medication, they wouldn't have even had reason to test that on human cells if its a horse de-wormer and not a human medication too. You can't have it both ways guys.
(no judgement or endorsement on either side of the argument as to use of it with covid)

[Robert]

Pfizer trials are clearly questionable. This is from the British Medical Journal.

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight. Paul D Thacker reports

In autumn 2020 Pfizer’s chairman and chief executive, Albert Bourla, released an open letter to the billions of people around the world who were investing their hopes in a safe and effective covid-19 vaccine to end the pandemic. “As I’ve said before, we are operating at the speed of science,” Bourla wrote, explaining to the public when they could expect a Pfizer vaccine to be authorised in the United States.1

But, for researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety. A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. After repeatedly notifying Ventavia of these problems, the regional director, Brook Jackson, emailed a complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ventavia fired her later the same day. Jackson has provided The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.

Concerns raised
In her 25 September email to the FDA Jackson wrote that Ventavia had enrolled more than 1000 participants at three sites. The full trial (registered under NCT04368728) enrolled around 44 000 participants across 153 sites that included numerous commercial companies and academic centres. She then listed a dozen concerns she had witnessed, including:

Participants placed in a hallway after injection and not being monitored by clinical staff
Lack of timely follow-up of patients who experienced adverse events
Protocol deviations not being reported
Vaccines not being stored at proper temperatures
Mislabelled laboratory specimens, and
Targeting of Ventavia staff for reporting these types of problems.

This is the primary vaccine that is being mandated. I still say we do not know enough about it to mandate it or use it on children. Even FDA approval seems rushed and relying on poor test data from Pfizer.

Law suits will be hitting this week about this.