Flame retardant found in US breast milk(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Flame retardant found in US breast milk
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/20/toxic-flame-retardants-human-breast-milk
139 comments
Reminds me a lot of working in tech to be honest. Things break, postmortems are held. Even if the breakage is as simple as "this was an honest mistake", everything is held to "how can this never happen again," so process and red tape is added. Rinse and repeat ad nauseam until your delivery speed is butchered, the bugs _still_ happen, but hey, a project manager or someone somewhere now gets to pat themselves on the back for running a meeting and adding more process that they can now tout on their future interviews.
The entire point is that "an honest mistake" shouldn't be able to cause a large incident at a mature company. Requiring tests, code reviews, a test env, locked-down prod etc may slow down delivery, but it also prevents Andrew the sales dev accidentally corrupting the production database when he's doing a "quick fix for a customer".
risk of outage + its costs vs. risk of mitigation + its costs.
or as fight club said
> Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
or as fight club said
> Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
i don't necessarily mean prod DB going down as an "honest mistake," though. I think that is pretty deserving of a postmortem. What i meant is like, a bug making it through that stops something critical from working because the dev didn't write a test for it. We already know the resolution, we know who fucked up, we understand why it happened. There's no need for a postmortem to painstakingly add another layer or process for devs that screw up. Like, a lot of companies will then say "okay how can we prevent developers from forgetting to write tests" and start thinking about auto-generators for code, or adding some CI check, or a level of bureaucracy when all that was needed was the dev to own up to the mistake, or maybe their manager to tell them "c'mon, this can't happen again" and we can all move on with our day. And, if it keeps happening across differing folks, only THEN would I start thinking about process additions.
This is fixed by putting a dollar number on outages, and a seperate dollar number on process. Ie. "if each release has an extra day of tests and checks, then it will delay our hockey stick growth curve by 10%. Thats worth $X".
Turns out, it's usually better to be fast and break things, over trying to be reliable.
Turns out, it's usually better to be fast and break things, over trying to be reliable.
> Turns out, it's usually better to be fast and break things
In terms of # of correct guesses, sure. In terms of damage from guessing incorrectly over time, usually not.
The trick is to separate processes - A CSS update probably isn't very risky, and an auth or login update probably is. Don't bundle them into "website updates".
Run ahead with the layout changes and spend some time on failure-planning for the auth change.
In terms of # of correct guesses, sure. In terms of damage from guessing incorrectly over time, usually not.
The trick is to separate processes - A CSS update probably isn't very risky, and an auth or login update probably is. Don't bundle them into "website updates".
Run ahead with the layout changes and spend some time on failure-planning for the auth change.
Precisely this. The "move fast and break things" mantra came from a context where there were no users for the product yet and the people most inconvenienced by breakage are your own. It's a mantra saying "Don't worry about screwing up the UI team with a DB migration if it takes only five minutes to reverse the migration or ten minutes to tweak the UI; you can hash it out together and get back to work on the real problem." It's a reminder that exposing yourself to a little more pain now gets you to viable product faster, and the faster a startup gets to viable product, the likelier it is to take off before it hits the end of its runway.
It is not to be applied to destructive changes to systems users care about, and none of the companies named in the 2017 book by that title use that engineering tactic on their flagship products because real people care now.
It is not to be applied to destructive changes to systems users care about, and none of the companies named in the 2017 book by that title use that engineering tactic on their flagship products because real people care now.
Up until the point where part of what you're selling is reliability.
"Use our futzel service, you will be able to futz around all day long, and it won't go down!"
"Use our futzel service, you will be able to futz around all day long, and it won't go down!"
But at least that exact same bug can never happen again!
I believe DHH of Basecamp(?) fame calls this scarring on the first cut.
> The 2009 Greenstreet Berman study, carried out by the UK government, showed that in the period between 2002 and 2007 the UK Furniture and Furnishings Fire Safety Regulations accounted for 54 fewer deaths per year, 780 fewer non-fatal casualties per year and 1065 fewer fires each year following the introduction of the UK furniture safety regulations in 1988.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_retardant#Fire_safety_st...
With these particular statistics, the benefits of flame retardants vs. poisoning millions of people doesn't seem worth it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_retardant#Fire_safety_st...
With these particular statistics, the benefits of flame retardants vs. poisoning millions of people doesn't seem worth it.
That's an apples / oranges comparison unless we agree on an actuarial calculus for the value of saving an entire life vs. the cost of shortening a million lives by a day.
Happy to be challenged on these numbers, as this isn't within my field of knowledge:
* UK government value of prevented fatality: £2M [0]
* UK government value of a quality-adjusted life-year for a single person: £70k -> ~£192 per day [1]
[0] https://www.lse.ac.uk/PBS/assets/documents/Estimating-the-mo...
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-ap...
* UK government value of prevented fatality: £2M [0]
* UK government value of a quality-adjusted life-year for a single person: £70k -> ~£192 per day [1]
[0] https://www.lse.ac.uk/PBS/assets/documents/Estimating-the-mo...
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-ap...
boondoggle16(3)
It's likely worse than that, because I suspect this study is biased towards flame retardants being effective.
It is true in a very narrow range of conditions a flame retardant can prevent combustion, but it's like an airbag that will only deploy for impacts between 15 and 17 MPH. In real world circumstances with real world combustion sources they don't make a difference.
It is true in a very narrow range of conditions a flame retardant can prevent combustion, but it's like an airbag that will only deploy for impacts between 15 and 17 MPH. In real world circumstances with real world combustion sources they don't make a difference.
It's do-gooders and "safety first" types who are to blame, unless there was some body of smokers I'm unaware of who said "do this to protect us from the consequences of our own actions."
It's also the materials used in modern furniture, which catch fire faster.
https://fsri.org/research/new-comparison-natural-and-synthet...
https://fsri.org/research/new-comparison-natural-and-synthet...
> Yet another wonderful gift given to the world by cigarette smokers
Probably it was the tobacco companies lobbying for this.
Probably it was the tobacco companies lobbying for this.
Right, so these as POPs[0], otherwise known as forever chemicals like PFAS and others.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_organic_pollutant
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_organic_pollutant
No hint of it in the article, but this was a known (and notorious) problem half a century ago. One quick summary here - https://mleead.umich.edu/files/Key_Points_Michigans_1973_PBB...
> Flame retardant found in US breast milk
This is a good thing right? Nobody wants breasts to catch fire!
This is a good thing right? Nobody wants breasts to catch fire!
Or babies
Hot breasts should be safe!
h2odragon(1)
wife: have you babyproofed the house
me, an intellectual: I have fireproofed the baby.
me, an intellectual: I have fireproofed the baby.
I wonder if anyone has milked a house cat and tested it.
Comparative oncology is a thing - epidemiologists do compare incidences of cancer in humans vs their pets to tease out the effect of the environment on cancer because the diet of cats and dogs is very controlled, most all of them get dog or cat food.
[flagged]
If only more politicians were on board with the green agenda or made it one of their parties central issues.
he's always misrepresented by this imo, and the constant hit pieces are blatant because the camp that he runs against does this as a primary strategy.
he called for long-term safety studies for vaccine use, which is just tracking long-term effects, both positive and negative, to populations after getting vaccinated. he rightly points out a lack of this in the US, and rightly points out the concept of tradeoffs. Yes, vaccines can cause other negative long-term effects that aren't as bad as what you're being vaccinated against, in this case they're pulling a net-good. The case is also up for grabs that when this is a net-good or a net-bad, the information is simply not being shared the way it should, and is instead obfuscated by bureaucracy.
even the latest "anti-semetic" jabs at him are from him entertaining a hypothetical in conversation where he said nothing about jewish people being a cause of anything, its just so tiresome. afaik he spoke correctly on the ace-receptor binding affinities, but the binding affinities don't cause the disease to take root more or less. do i care if he gets this detail wrong? not really, it doesn't make him a super space nazi either. to steel man what he said is to admit there's potential for ethnic targeting of bio-weapons, and since its pretty much widely understood that covid did in fact come from joint US/China idiocy, and that China's financial records show that they're preparing for war in every way possible, I wouldn't put it past a regime who's actions seem to be rhyming with a lot of other regimes from history to try to come up with a bioweapon that could potentially have that effect. The west has, after all, basically been pushing venture capital all over the insane nonsense Xi could end up using against them for the last 20+ years.
he called for long-term safety studies for vaccine use, which is just tracking long-term effects, both positive and negative, to populations after getting vaccinated. he rightly points out a lack of this in the US, and rightly points out the concept of tradeoffs. Yes, vaccines can cause other negative long-term effects that aren't as bad as what you're being vaccinated against, in this case they're pulling a net-good. The case is also up for grabs that when this is a net-good or a net-bad, the information is simply not being shared the way it should, and is instead obfuscated by bureaucracy.
even the latest "anti-semetic" jabs at him are from him entertaining a hypothetical in conversation where he said nothing about jewish people being a cause of anything, its just so tiresome. afaik he spoke correctly on the ace-receptor binding affinities, but the binding affinities don't cause the disease to take root more or less. do i care if he gets this detail wrong? not really, it doesn't make him a super space nazi either. to steel man what he said is to admit there's potential for ethnic targeting of bio-weapons, and since its pretty much widely understood that covid did in fact come from joint US/China idiocy, and that China's financial records show that they're preparing for war in every way possible, I wouldn't put it past a regime who's actions seem to be rhyming with a lot of other regimes from history to try to come up with a bioweapon that could potentially have that effect. The west has, after all, basically been pushing venture capital all over the insane nonsense Xi could end up using against them for the last 20+ years.
This musing about vaccine safety is quite obviously not some rigorous rationality, it is a simple dog-whistle to attract the rabid anti-vaxxers while not immediately alienating those who rightly view this as an unacceptable position. Vaccine safety is being tracked, and there is no indication whatsoever of any harm from vaccines except for mild symptoms immediately after injection and extremely rare more serious events. The research is done, there is nothing more to discuss.
The latest anti-semitic accusation is also more serious than you make it out to be. He explicitly claims that Covid-19 affected Jewish people ("Ashkenazi Jews") and Chinese people less than others, and talks about that as "targeting". His exact words are that "there is an argument that Covid-19 was ethnically targeted", repeating that it is "targeted to affect Caucasian and Black individuals". He softens it a bit by saying that we don't know if it was deliberately targeted, but he then goes on to talk about how both the USA and the Chinese are working on ethnically-targeted bio weapons, so the implication is more than clear.
I will say that it's not necessarily clear that he is being anti-semitic here, but he is clearly being sinophobic and very very clearly implying that Covid-19 was an ethnically-targeted Chinese bio-weapon, a preposterous claim.
The latest anti-semitic accusation is also more serious than you make it out to be. He explicitly claims that Covid-19 affected Jewish people ("Ashkenazi Jews") and Chinese people less than others, and talks about that as "targeting". His exact words are that "there is an argument that Covid-19 was ethnically targeted", repeating that it is "targeted to affect Caucasian and Black individuals". He softens it a bit by saying that we don't know if it was deliberately targeted, but he then goes on to talk about how both the USA and the Chinese are working on ethnically-targeted bio weapons, so the implication is more than clear.
I will say that it's not necessarily clear that he is being anti-semitic here, but he is clearly being sinophobic and very very clearly implying that Covid-19 was an ethnically-targeted Chinese bio-weapon, a preposterous claim.
You just take the most unfavorable interpretation of what he said and add some jumps to conclusion to arrive at what fits your pre-existing opinion.
What is a more favorable interpretation of what he said?
If he doesn't want to imply Covid-19 was a bio-weapon, why does he bring it up out of nowhere in the middle of some musings on bio-weapons? Why does he keep using the words "ethnically targeted" if he doesn't want to imply it was, well, ethnically targeted?
If he doesn't want to imply Covid-19 was a bio-weapon, why does he bring it up out of nowhere in the middle of some musings on bio-weapons? Why does he keep using the words "ethnically targeted" if he doesn't want to imply it was, well, ethnically targeted?
Wow! That's actual begging the question!
The poster attempts to present evidence that credence should be high that China is able to, and would, make bioweapons that are ethnically targeted. At no point does he suggest they have already done so.
That this is insufficient evidence for China's capabilities is likely the more reasonable discussion to have. I don't think they're there yet, and the lab leak from Wuhan shows they're still a bit sloppy in how they handle these things.
The poster attempts to present evidence that credence should be high that China is able to, and would, make bioweapons that are ethnically targeted. At no point does he suggest they have already done so.
That this is insufficient evidence for China's capabilities is likely the more reasonable discussion to have. I don't think they're there yet, and the lab leak from Wuhan shows they're still a bit sloppy in how they handle these things.
The discussion goes like this:
1. RFK Jr claims he has been doing research on bio weapons and he claims that the advancements in this area are mind-blowing
2. He then starts talking about how Covid-19 allegedly targeted certain groups less (Jewish and Chinese people), and certain others more (Caucasian and Black people).
3. He then says we don't know if it was intentionally targeted
4. He then goes back to talking about how both the USA and China supposedly have research programs into ethnically-targeted bio-weapons.
The best possible interpretation of this is that he uses the Covid-19 example to only to show that a virus can affect certain populations more than others. However, he uses the word "targeted" for this, and explicitly mentions that it's possible that it was intentionally targeted [by someone]. So, the more plausible read is that he is implying Covid-19 may well be an example of such a bioweapon created by the Chinese to attack Caucasian and Black people.
I will note that I am highly skeptical of his base claim that Covid-19 had some genetic preference for Caucasian and Black people. Any such claim is highly suspect, since it typically conflates ethnicity with genetics without actually doing any actual genetic testing to check. While it is of course true that there are certain genetic differences between ethnic groups, there are also huge social and behavioral and wealth differences between all such groups, which can also explain differences in disease outcomes.
Also, especially when looking at these groups inside of multi-ethnic countries like the USA, the exact genetics of any specific individual may or may not match the general group genetics, since they have different heritability, and inter-group marriages are common. Just because someone has inherited darker skin tones (and would thus be part of the ethnic group "Black people") doesn't mean they also inherited a predisposition to sickle-cell anemia, for example.
1. RFK Jr claims he has been doing research on bio weapons and he claims that the advancements in this area are mind-blowing
2. He then starts talking about how Covid-19 allegedly targeted certain groups less (Jewish and Chinese people), and certain others more (Caucasian and Black people).
3. He then says we don't know if it was intentionally targeted
4. He then goes back to talking about how both the USA and China supposedly have research programs into ethnically-targeted bio-weapons.
The best possible interpretation of this is that he uses the Covid-19 example to only to show that a virus can affect certain populations more than others. However, he uses the word "targeted" for this, and explicitly mentions that it's possible that it was intentionally targeted [by someone]. So, the more plausible read is that he is implying Covid-19 may well be an example of such a bioweapon created by the Chinese to attack Caucasian and Black people.
I will note that I am highly skeptical of his base claim that Covid-19 had some genetic preference for Caucasian and Black people. Any such claim is highly suspect, since it typically conflates ethnicity with genetics without actually doing any actual genetic testing to check. While it is of course true that there are certain genetic differences between ethnic groups, there are also huge social and behavioral and wealth differences between all such groups, which can also explain differences in disease outcomes.
Also, especially when looking at these groups inside of multi-ethnic countries like the USA, the exact genetics of any specific individual may or may not match the general group genetics, since they have different heritability, and inter-group marriages are common. Just because someone has inherited darker skin tones (and would thus be part of the ethnic group "Black people") doesn't mean they also inherited a predisposition to sickle-cell anemia, for example.
Thank you for laying that out. I took your comment to mean that it was the second-level poster, and not RFK Jr., making those claims, but this clarifies things.
As for any ethnic preference of SARS-CoV-2, I've not seen any evidence for that either. We do know that it affects men worse than women, which is explained by XY instead of XX chromosomes (women are better at fighting it off as their immune systems begin the work sooner). The comorbidities in the US just happen to be because we have higher tendencies toward type II diabetes (poor diet, lack of exercise). That's not anything special about the virus, though.
As for any ethnic preference of SARS-CoV-2, I've not seen any evidence for that either. We do know that it affects men worse than women, which is explained by XY instead of XX chromosomes (women are better at fighting it off as their immune systems begin the work sooner). The comorbidities in the US just happen to be because we have higher tendencies toward type II diabetes (poor diet, lack of exercise). That's not anything special about the virus, though.
Here is the paper where he got the claim about the ethnic preference of SARS-CoV-2. It was produced by the Cleveland Clinic and mentions differences in the cleavage sites depending on race.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32664879/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32664879/
Pfizer vaccinated their control group from the initial vaccines, so that long-term study was squashed by Pfizer. And the adverse effects data are still being collected and examined in light of reporting criteria and classification. Yet, the blanket policy to vax everyone without prioritizing by harm-benefit analysis and ignoring the science was not just negligent but intentional to push a social policy over the data. Memory-holing natural immunity was another. If you were engineering a virus to not affect one group, say Chinese, it doesn't mean another group may be unintendedly less affected too, say Ashkenazi Jews. Calling that racist would make genetic testing among Hassidic Jews for genetic predisposition to specific diseases before marrying and producing offspring, what? Science. Given the homogeneity of a large portion of the genetic makeup of China, the Han people, it would be easier to target other races than say it would for Americans to exclude the majority of its diverse population from an engineered virus. And if you truly believe bio-weapon research is not being done by most powerful nations you are naive.
Pfizer wanted a license to sell their COVID vaccine in India.
The Indian government asked them for local clinical trials first.
This should have been an easy win, prove the vaccine is safe and effective in a controlled trial and you can sell it into a market of 1.38 billion people.
Pfizer declined. Why do you think that is?
Let me give you a hint, here is the CEO of Pfizer admitting that he never took his own COVID vaccine. Isn’t that odd? [0]
[0] https://twitter.com/wolsned/status/1678719867975761920?s=46&...
The Indian government asked them for local clinical trials first.
This should have been an easy win, prove the vaccine is safe and effective in a controlled trial and you can sell it into a market of 1.38 billion people.
Pfizer declined. Why do you think that is?
Let me give you a hint, here is the CEO of Pfizer admitting that he never took his own COVID vaccine. Isn’t that odd? [0]
[0] https://twitter.com/wolsned/status/1678719867975761920?s=46&...
Funny that your Twitter link happens to leave out when the Pfizer CEO made that comment. Initially all doses were supposed to the elderly and front-line workers. He mentions that the vaccine wasn't recommended for his group as he isn't a front-line worker. Do you have any evidence he still hasn't taken it?
> Do you have any evidence he still hasn't taken it?
No I don’t have any evidence he still hasn’t taken it. Do you have any evidence he has?
I agree with your recall of the initial recommendation, but I also know how much pressure was put on me and many others outside that group to take the vaccine. I would have been prevented from flying to my home country or working for many companies had I not taken two doses of an experimental vaccine approved under emergency use authorization.
I learned only recently that the CEO of the leading vaccine developer chose not to take it himself at the time. As a result, I feel I was mislead.
When I read about the significant increase in all cause mortality among the vaccinated and learn that no trials were conducted related to fertility or pregnancy related side effects and consider that my wife and I were trying for a baby at that time, if I am being honest - I do feel like I was deceived.
No I don’t have any evidence he still hasn’t taken it. Do you have any evidence he has?
I agree with your recall of the initial recommendation, but I also know how much pressure was put on me and many others outside that group to take the vaccine. I would have been prevented from flying to my home country or working for many companies had I not taken two doses of an experimental vaccine approved under emergency use authorization.
I learned only recently that the CEO of the leading vaccine developer chose not to take it himself at the time. As a result, I feel I was mislead.
When I read about the significant increase in all cause mortality among the vaccinated and learn that no trials were conducted related to fertility or pregnancy related side effects and consider that my wife and I were trying for a baby at that time, if I am being honest - I do feel like I was deceived.
When was the video taken? If it was during the initial time, why do you use it as evidence that the Pfizer CEO hasn't taken the vaccine? Why didn't you mention that, instead making it seem like the CEO hasn't taken the vaccine for other reasons than he literally stated in the video?
And let's consider you were right, the Pfizer CEO doesn't trust the vaccine and still hasn't taken it. Why the hell would he ever admit he didn't take it? Why wouldn't he say "yeah, I took the first dose"?
And let's consider you were right, the Pfizer CEO doesn't trust the vaccine and still hasn't taken it. Why the hell would he ever admit he didn't take it? Why wouldn't he say "yeah, I took the first dose"?
I don’t know when the video was taken. It could have been early in the pandemic. I saw that video and found it odd that the CEO didn’t take his own vaccine in the middle of a pandemic - that’s all.
What does concern me, is the reason why Pfizer would be willing to give up on a market of 1.38 billion people. That single local trial could have doubled their potential global market.
I don’t understand the logic of foregoing so much profit. Why do you think they would do that? Any explanations?
What does concern me, is the reason why Pfizer would be willing to give up on a market of 1.38 billion people. That single local trial could have doubled their potential global market.
I don’t understand the logic of foregoing so much profit. Why do you think they would do that? Any explanations?
Do you now admit that the way you posted the video was highly misleading?
How was it misleading? By his own admission he didn’t take the vaccine.
Do you agree it is fishy that a for profit Pharma company would choose to forego a market of 1.38 billion customers simply because they would have been required to do local clinical trials? I find that troubling. Why don’t you?
Do you agree it is fishy that a for profit Pharma company would choose to forego a market of 1.38 billion customers simply because they would have been required to do local clinical trials? I find that troubling. Why don’t you?
> How was it misleading? By his own admission he didn’t take the vaccine.
You posted the video as proof the Pfizer CEO hasn't taken the video, without mentioning when it was taken, and without mentioning that he followed public health recommendations. You made it seem like the CEO decided not to take it because he doesn't trust it, but he didn't take it as to not be selfish. Do you now admit that you posted this in a highly misleading way?
You posted the video as proof the Pfizer CEO hasn't taken the video, without mentioning when it was taken, and without mentioning that he followed public health recommendations. You made it seem like the CEO decided not to take it because he doesn't trust it, but he didn't take it as to not be selfish. Do you now admit that you posted this in a highly misleading way?
I will admit that when I initially posted the video I did not know when it was taken.
Do you admit it is highly suspicious for a for profit Pharma company to forego the profits on a single market that is larger than both the US and the EU combined?
Can you explain your hypothesis for why they would do that?
Do you admit it is highly suspicious for a for profit Pharma company to forego the profits on a single market that is larger than both the US and the EU combined?
Can you explain your hypothesis for why they would do that?
your response tells me everything though, you think one thing is "rightly viewed as an unacceptable position", neither nuance or complexity is allowed, my original paragraph spoke on tradeoffs, on nuance itself. if you don't address that then you yourself are dogwhistling, how are you better than the strawman you paint of RFK?
regarding the anti-semetic bit, not only did you completely avoid the main point of what was being said by both RFK and me, which is the potential for ethnic targeting, you've quoted his statement yourself with "there is an argument...", its not "i support the idea that...". its like people can't even speak hypotheticals without baseless accusations coming around every corner, what's the point of dialogue if we act like this? let's just settle presidential elections in a wrestling ring.
regarding the anti-semetic bit, not only did you completely avoid the main point of what was being said by both RFK and me, which is the potential for ethnic targeting, you've quoted his statement yourself with "there is an argument...", its not "i support the idea that...". its like people can't even speak hypotheticals without baseless accusations coming around every corner, what's the point of dialogue if we act like this? let's just settle presidential elections in a wrestling ring.
I think the issue is that the "I'm just asking questions!" technique is used to express opinions without taking responsibility for them.
When anxiety-producing questions keep getting "asked" by a politician when they already have rigorous, data-backed answers, they are being used as a political tool, disguised as skepticism or genuine scientific inquiry.
When anxiety-producing questions keep getting "asked" by a politician when they already have rigorous, data-backed answers, they are being used as a political tool, disguised as skepticism or genuine scientific inquiry.
taking responsibility for a question? yeah that's ridiculous
as a human being, you're allowed to have discussion on topics in order to flesh them out.
as a human being, you're allowed to have discussion on topics in order to flesh them out.
There are questions where looking for nuance detracts rather than add to the conversation. The earth is round, there is no need for nuance there. Similarly, vaccines work and have been proven to be better than not getting vaccinated in every single case in the last, say, 20 years. Adding nuance to that only serves to muddy the waters.
The same sort of thing happens with hypotheticals. Sure, they are important and not every hypothetical should be read as an affirmation. But then there are cases like OJ Simpsons "If I had done it" - where the hypothetical framing is such an obvious fig leaf that it's ridiculous to pretend. And saying "there's an argument that" in the middle of a discussion about bio weapons, bringing up highly disputable facts like the supposed ethnic differences in Covid-19 effects, and then not spending even another second to acknowledge that there is 0 evidence for this supposed hypothetical - that all brings it to a level where it's comical not to recognize what was actually being said.
The same sort of thing happens with hypotheticals. Sure, they are important and not every hypothetical should be read as an affirmation. But then there are cases like OJ Simpsons "If I had done it" - where the hypothetical framing is such an obvious fig leaf that it's ridiculous to pretend. And saying "there's an argument that" in the middle of a discussion about bio weapons, bringing up highly disputable facts like the supposed ethnic differences in Covid-19 effects, and then not spending even another second to acknowledge that there is 0 evidence for this supposed hypothetical - that all brings it to a level where it's comical not to recognize what was actually being said.
> The earth is round, there is no need for nuance there.
Clearly there is _some_ need for nuance there since the Earth isn't exactly a sphere. Even calling it an oblate ellipsoid isn't a perfect model. There is nuance everywhere, and clearly some models are more wrong than others; modeling the Earth as flat is much less accurate than a sphere, which in turn is less accurate than the somewhat flattened spheres common today, which in turn is less accurate than whatever the true shape of the Earth is.
But the takeaway from that shouldn't be creating a dogma that "the Earth is round" and moving on, just to own the guys that claim its flat (who are by and large just trolling you).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth
Clearly there is _some_ need for nuance there since the Earth isn't exactly a sphere. Even calling it an oblate ellipsoid isn't a perfect model. There is nuance everywhere, and clearly some models are more wrong than others; modeling the Earth as flat is much less accurate than a sphere, which in turn is less accurate than the somewhat flattened spheres common today, which in turn is less accurate than whatever the true shape of the Earth is.
But the takeaway from that shouldn't be creating a dogma that "the Earth is round" and moving on, just to own the guys that claim its flat (who are by and large just trolling you).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth
even if a vaccine has passed all the required clinical trials for america's FDA to certify it, if and when you release it on a population you can still find things to be wrong with it, or effects its having that weren't understood. this is how all of medicine works, to try and dismiss the complexity of biology is a detraction from honesty itself. long term safety studies of vaccines, especially those given in early childhood, need to be used to determine that they don't cause harm, worse than the disease they're meant to prevent, 10-20 years down the line.
can you explain what i've detracted from this conversation? the nuance is appropriate. the complexity belongs as a natural part of the conversation.
your oversimplifications are more dangerous than the so called "detractions" that you haven't given a proper example of.
can you explain what i've detracted from this conversation? the nuance is appropriate. the complexity belongs as a natural part of the conversation.
your oversimplifications are more dangerous than the so called "detractions" that you haven't given a proper example of.
Why do you keep implying that such studies are not already being done? Most vaccines we use are by now decades old, and adverse effects of all medicines, especially serious adverse effects, are reported, there is a whole system for this.
Vaccines, by and large, have proven to be some of the safest medicine we take. Will the mRNA vaccines prove different? I hope not, but it is of course relatively early in their existence. But thing like the MMR vaccines and the polio vaccine have been administered on a huge scale for decades, and all the possible data has been collected - they are effective and safe.
Vaccines, by and large, have proven to be some of the safest medicine we take. Will the mRNA vaccines prove different? I hope not, but it is of course relatively early in their existence. But thing like the MMR vaccines and the polio vaccine have been administered on a huge scale for decades, and all the possible data has been collected - they are effective and safe.
RFK has suggested they're locked in bureaucratic problems, which I agree with, because of regulatory capture.
and you keep framing things as if i'm saying all vaccines are terrible, that's insane, i've not said that once. and you also want to argue this laser-focussed agenda on whether ALL vaccines are good or bad, but we're literally MAKING them bad by going after the livelihoods of people who don't want to get it. and there are vaccines, much like other drugs, that have been recalled before. you have every right to be skeptical. otherwise we're not living in a free society.
there's literally people being denied life-saving surgeries because they haven't gotten a covid vaccine. it should be your choice whether you get vaccinated or not. someone in canada needed a kidney transplant, and had multiple brothers as compatible donors willing to give one to him, but he was denied the right to a surgery all over a covid vaccine.
is this what vaccines are supposed to be? something you hang over other people's heads in order to passive aggressively kill them for their beliefs? getting covid and gaining immunity offers all the same herd immunity (better, even) than you would get from a vaccine. there's no moral high-ground for denying someone life-saving surgery anymore and we're still playing this stupid game.
literally 8 years ago i would be arguing every point you're trying to make, but after being in the pharmaceutical industry for longer than that, after watching clinical trials of drugs i've contributed to myself, i know the flaws of this system. i'm not a moron and i'm not a lunatic. there is a lot to be worried about and if RFK wants to raise these issues in the federal political arena, i'm willing to believe it will bring benefit to the flaws i've become familiar with.
and you keep framing things as if i'm saying all vaccines are terrible, that's insane, i've not said that once. and you also want to argue this laser-focussed agenda on whether ALL vaccines are good or bad, but we're literally MAKING them bad by going after the livelihoods of people who don't want to get it. and there are vaccines, much like other drugs, that have been recalled before. you have every right to be skeptical. otherwise we're not living in a free society.
there's literally people being denied life-saving surgeries because they haven't gotten a covid vaccine. it should be your choice whether you get vaccinated or not. someone in canada needed a kidney transplant, and had multiple brothers as compatible donors willing to give one to him, but he was denied the right to a surgery all over a covid vaccine.
is this what vaccines are supposed to be? something you hang over other people's heads in order to passive aggressively kill them for their beliefs? getting covid and gaining immunity offers all the same herd immunity (better, even) than you would get from a vaccine. there's no moral high-ground for denying someone life-saving surgery anymore and we're still playing this stupid game.
literally 8 years ago i would be arguing every point you're trying to make, but after being in the pharmaceutical industry for longer than that, after watching clinical trials of drugs i've contributed to myself, i know the flaws of this system. i'm not a moron and i'm not a lunatic. there is a lot to be worried about and if RFK wants to raise these issues in the federal political arena, i'm willing to believe it will bring benefit to the flaws i've become familiar with.
This is an unbelievably generous take on RFK2's vaccine views. He has said, as recently as a few days ago on live TV, that vaccine research created HIV and other major diseases. He is not in favor of more long-term research, as you suggest. He is against all vaccine research.
Anyone that brings up RFK2 does so in bad faith.
The right's is pushing this guy hard as someone the left is conspiring against to silence.
I've heard him compared to Bernie...by those on the right.
They clearly do not understand what they are saying but it is clear they are using him to 'concern' the left that the left is up to it's tricks by suppressing this clearly "intelligent" man with a (D) after his name.
But the intelligence they see is because he believes the same anti-vax nonsense that aligns with their politicization of covid including that covid itself is a conspiracy.
The right's is pushing this guy hard as someone the left is conspiring against to silence.
I've heard him compared to Bernie...by those on the right.
They clearly do not understand what they are saying but it is clear they are using him to 'concern' the left that the left is up to it's tricks by suppressing this clearly "intelligent" man with a (D) after his name.
But the intelligence they see is because he believes the same anti-vax nonsense that aligns with their politicization of covid including that covid itself is a conspiracy.
If he is as inconsistent or deceptive on vaccines as he is on guns and gun rights, then it is very possible you and the person you replied to have seen wildly different opinions from RFK.
i've heard him say the exact words I wrote out in a calm environment of a podcast that doesn't invoke media-gaslighting-urgency, or clip out any of what you say in bad faith
television forces the worst out of people, especially with the constant interruptions made by professional interrupters aka newcasters who's job it is to make people look bad whenever necessary.
i simply don't believe what you have to say because i know the nature of the media business, they're against him so they'll do anything they can to throw him off kilter in a conversation, change the topic, or interrupt him to make it look like he's saying something different. he talks on really complicated topics that can't be compressed through interruptions, the media has only shown itself incapable of hosting such conversations.
television forces the worst out of people, especially with the constant interruptions made by professional interrupters aka newcasters who's job it is to make people look bad whenever necessary.
i simply don't believe what you have to say because i know the nature of the media business, they're against him so they'll do anything they can to throw him off kilter in a conversation, change the topic, or interrupt him to make it look like he's saying something different. he talks on really complicated topics that can't be compressed through interruptions, the media has only shown itself incapable of hosting such conversations.
A man who cannot stop himself from saying that HIV was created by vaccine researchers is an idiot in any context.
can you link me to this video because i've tried googling it and i haven't found him talking about HIV, yet i've found youtube commentary of people saying he did while clipping a video where he didn't talk about it at all
and did he say vaccine research created aids? or was he saying it's been spread through needles? there's so many details missing in this story
and did he say vaccine research created aids? or was he saying it's been spread through needles? there's so many details missing in this story
veidr(2)
JFK Jr. has a lot of conspiracy theories, otherwise I'd view the vaccine perspective as merely a quirk.
To be honest, for someone whose uncle and father were both assassinated, he has a surprisingly level head.
It seems to me that there are two different things being conflated. I've listened to a number of his interviews and do confess he's not always easy to follow but this seems partly due to a history of speech problems which he has worked to overcome.
There is consensus (even by RFK Jr from what I hear in interviews) that vaccines confer good immunity to the population and help control serious diseases that historically killed or maimed millions of people.
There is also an argument RFK Jr. makes which is that the vaccine solutions contain many harmful components other than the actual vaccine and these components are responsible for many harmful outcomes due to their presence. These harmful side effects should not be considered acceptable and there should be work to eliminate these harms because they are not really acceptable.
However, these positions seem to be routinely headlined as being anti-vaccine. They are not. The argument is anti-harm and that seems to be something people would normally support. Only through misrepresentation of his comments do people come to believe he is against vaccines and he should be "rightly maligned".
His interview with Jordan Peterson was very interesting, especially as it did highlight some of RFK Jr's blindspots on politics. Worth taking time to listen to the whole thing even though it is quite long.
There is consensus (even by RFK Jr from what I hear in interviews) that vaccines confer good immunity to the population and help control serious diseases that historically killed or maimed millions of people.
There is also an argument RFK Jr. makes which is that the vaccine solutions contain many harmful components other than the actual vaccine and these components are responsible for many harmful outcomes due to their presence. These harmful side effects should not be considered acceptable and there should be work to eliminate these harms because they are not really acceptable.
However, these positions seem to be routinely headlined as being anti-vaccine. They are not. The argument is anti-harm and that seems to be something people would normally support. Only through misrepresentation of his comments do people come to believe he is against vaccines and he should be "rightly maligned".
His interview with Jordan Peterson was very interesting, especially as it did highlight some of RFK Jr's blindspots on politics. Worth taking time to listen to the whole thing even though it is quite long.
> There is also an argument RFK Jr. makes which is that the vaccine solutions contain many harmful components
.. and he started down that path by repeating, without checking, highly bogus discredited "science" about the harmful effects of thimerosal and a deliberate widespread conspiracy regarding its use.
When he jumped on that public bandwagon it had already been out of use for more than a decade after being used for some two decades prior in trace amounts that caused not great issues.
Everything he said was either false, 30 years out of date, or both.
He really hasn't improved much since.
.. and he started down that path by repeating, without checking, highly bogus discredited "science" about the harmful effects of thimerosal and a deliberate widespread conspiracy regarding its use.
When he jumped on that public bandwagon it had already been out of use for more than a decade after being used for some two decades prior in trace amounts that caused not great issues.
Everything he said was either false, 30 years out of date, or both.
He really hasn't improved much since.
Remember when pharma companies rolled out a vaccine in record time with nearly zero safety or efficacy studies and claimed it was both safe and effective and got lots of media and researchers to parrot the same. And then when asked for data they said it shouldn’t be made public for something like 50 years? And then we learned it wasn’t nearly as safe as claimed and a lot of the impossible to spread from the injection site claimed were untrue at scale and whatever measure of effectiveness used didn’t include immunity or transmission. History is littered with junk science claims by entities with financial incentives. Unfortunately, there are probably also incentives to identify risk in competitors products.
Unfortunately, “science” has done a good job of discrediting itself lately and shown to be susceptible to corruption, influence, and outright fabrication. How can anyone trust a paper discrediting another any more than the original research when the liability associated with those harmful effects would be astronomically damaging to influential organizations?
I don’t have any issues with most traditional, dead virus vaccines, but also have no trust in pharma or even public institutions to do what’s in the public’s best interest when it is not aligned with theirs or causes other harm to them.
We need more pharma sceptics, imho. They hold a considerable amount of power over the population and take in absurd profits in the process. Anyone who challenges that will be misrepresented and maligned publicly, if not removed through more violent means. I’m sure Kennedy’s know that more than most dynasty families.
Unfortunately, “science” has done a good job of discrediting itself lately and shown to be susceptible to corruption, influence, and outright fabrication. How can anyone trust a paper discrediting another any more than the original research when the liability associated with those harmful effects would be astronomically damaging to influential organizations?
I don’t have any issues with most traditional, dead virus vaccines, but also have no trust in pharma or even public institutions to do what’s in the public’s best interest when it is not aligned with theirs or causes other harm to them.
We need more pharma sceptics, imho. They hold a considerable amount of power over the population and take in absurd profits in the process. Anyone who challenges that will be misrepresented and maligned publicly, if not removed through more violent means. I’m sure Kennedy’s know that more than most dynasty families.
I remember when the COVID-19 pandemic first appeared and the R values were announced.
I remember immediately volunteering to be part of locally run trials to test probably suitable vaccine classes already in the pipeline and I remember being an active part of a trial within months.
I recall the planning and the effort spent to bring modern critical path JIT approaches to traditional vaccine development that ran multiple variations of every traditional stage as much in parallel as possible thereby shortening the entire runway without compressing the neccesary time for each critical stage.
I recall having discussions with a world renowned epidemiologist from here in my home state who I worked with as a young student in mathematics some 40 years ago about the quality of the science and the diligence being taken.
History is littered with easily disproven junk science claims by political entities that play to feelings of the masses by saying whatever plays to their base.
I remember immediately volunteering to be part of locally run trials to test probably suitable vaccine classes already in the pipeline and I remember being an active part of a trial within months.
I recall the planning and the effort spent to bring modern critical path JIT approaches to traditional vaccine development that ran multiple variations of every traditional stage as much in parallel as possible thereby shortening the entire runway without compressing the neccesary time for each critical stage.
I recall having discussions with a world renowned epidemiologist from here in my home state who I worked with as a young student in mathematics some 40 years ago about the quality of the science and the diligence being taken.
History is littered with easily disproven junk science claims by political entities that play to feelings of the masses by saying whatever plays to their base.
Here is one of many articles covering RFK's antivaccine conspiracy stance: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-robert-f-kenn...
I use that phrase because it is an accurate descriptor. He has literally published articles claiming a grand conspiracy to poison Americans, rejecting all data from repeated vaccine trials and studies by the international scientific community.
Vaccine trials use the real vaccine that would go to consumers, all of it. There is robust study of the whole package, not just the component that interacts with the immune system.
RFK is a bogus baseless conspiracy theorist, regardless of his current PR campaign.
I use that phrase because it is an accurate descriptor. He has literally published articles claiming a grand conspiracy to poison Americans, rejecting all data from repeated vaccine trials and studies by the international scientific community.
Vaccine trials use the real vaccine that would go to consumers, all of it. There is robust study of the whole package, not just the component that interacts with the immune system.
RFK is a bogus baseless conspiracy theorist, regardless of his current PR campaign.
His thoughts have lots of traction, I think he needs to be engaged and not dismissed as a joke. There is a lot of distrust on the right in how covid played out. We are all on the same team here and everyone would be better off if we all realized it. The other side is not evil, they are trying to do what they think is best for everyone.
Most evil people had good intentions.
Not sure that's true, but I'm sure that people with good intentions who are very stupid do often cause unintended harm.
(Here by "stupid" I mostly mean "unable to perceive the world accurately, relative to other people with the same resources at their disposal, and unable to differentiate objective reality from false ideas that make them feel good in some way".)
(Here by "stupid" I mostly mean "unable to perceive the world accurately, relative to other people with the same resources at their disposal, and unable to differentiate objective reality from false ideas that make them feel good in some way".)
> misrepresentation of his comments
"We need to, prior to licensing vaccines, do gold standard safety testing, like every other drug approval requires. We need to do double-blind placebo testing."
- We do mate.
Kennedy also said that he wanted to ensure “that vaccines are subject to the same kind of safety scrutiny and safety testing that other drugs are subject to."
- They are already subjected to more safety scrutiny and more safety testing.
"the hepatitis B vaccines that are currently approved had fewer than five days of safety testing."
- 2 years of human clinical trials is a longer length of time than 5 days.
"We need to, prior to licensing vaccines, do gold standard safety testing, like every other drug approval requires. We need to do double-blind placebo testing."
- We do mate.
Kennedy also said that he wanted to ensure “that vaccines are subject to the same kind of safety scrutiny and safety testing that other drugs are subject to."
- They are already subjected to more safety scrutiny and more safety testing.
"the hepatitis B vaccines that are currently approved had fewer than five days of safety testing."
- 2 years of human clinical trials is a longer length of time than 5 days.
If there were significant harms then they would arise is the rigorous trials done before a vaccine is released. This isn’t exactly an unstudied area and his extraordinary claims have no scientifically reviewed evidence. He’s just a guy saying things.
> rigorous trials
Good thing we don't have any warp speed vaccines that compress this vital process!
Good thing we don't have any warp speed vaccines that compress this vital process!
mRNA vaccines have been studied for decades. Vaccinations in general, for significantly longer.
Specifically, how many studies, and for what length, would you have been satisfied with? What is your specific epidemiological and medical background that led you to decide on that length of time? What is the specific number of elderly deaths you would have allowed, before giving people the completely optional ability to take those vaccines?
I ask none of those questions in bad faith, but I'm rather tired of the 'no no no no' attitude on the right, where nothing was ever going to be good enough and the real answer you want is that we should've vaccinated no one at all, ever.
Specifically, how many studies, and for what length, would you have been satisfied with? What is your specific epidemiological and medical background that led you to decide on that length of time? What is the specific number of elderly deaths you would have allowed, before giving people the completely optional ability to take those vaccines?
I ask none of those questions in bad faith, but I'm rather tired of the 'no no no no' attitude on the right, where nothing was ever going to be good enough and the real answer you want is that we should've vaccinated no one at all, ever.
Let's stop everything until proven safe.
Yeah but we need to innovate !!!
Ah ok, it's a compromise then.
Cool, I have plenty of money and the state where I operate is weak so I can buy the compromise !
Frustrating ? yes but there are millions around you who just don't know/care. So you're the only one to be frustrated.
Besides, that's democracy. Sleep well.
Yeah but we need to innovate !!!
Ah ok, it's a compromise then.
Cool, I have plenty of money and the state where I operate is weak so I can buy the compromise !
Frustrating ? yes but there are millions around you who just don't know/care. So you're the only one to be frustrated.
Besides, that's democracy. Sleep well.
What does democracy have to do with being poisoned by another entity without knowledge of the risks? Buying laws is the antithesis of democracy. I could see that argument regarding capitalism (though I probably wouldn’t agree).
[deleted]
And how does regulatory capture fit within your conception that democracy and capitalism are completely separate?
Of course people with large amounts of money and influence can influence ostensibly democratic processes, in order to take more of the money for themselves.
Of course people with large amounts of money and influence can influence ostensibly democratic processes, in order to take more of the money for themselves.
Didn't democracy just force us all inside for two years? Tyranny of the majority is always a problem, the solution is a better constitution that prevents this kind of problem. Plus getting personally informed. If fire retardant is your concern, you can probably source things that don't have it if it's important enough to you.
It be more accurate to say that democracy forced you _not_ to go inside. I spent a lot of time outside, but some shops were closed or you had to gasp wear a mask in them.
I think the "forced inside thing" is false. I am not particularly religious but I take issue with the government telling congregations they cannot practice their faith, even outdoors, and in the same breath tell people protesting is a-ok and totally your right.
What we have isn't a democracy. It's a gerontocracy that saw political gain in putting hundreds of thousands at risk while simultaneously sticking it to the religious (possibly) right. For whatever reason, mentioning this turns things inflammatory when it's the reality of the situation. You could protest shoulder to shoulder with or without a mask but congregating for church was made temporarily illegal. What kind of logic is that?
What we have isn't a democracy. It's a gerontocracy that saw political gain in putting hundreds of thousands at risk while simultaneously sticking it to the religious (possibly) right. For whatever reason, mentioning this turns things inflammatory when it's the reality of the situation. You could protest shoulder to shoulder with or without a mask but congregating for church was made temporarily illegal. What kind of logic is that?
Weren't all gatherings banned, but due to different legal rights for protests they weren't? Framing it as an attack against religion is incredibly misleading in that case.
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are held in the same esteem constitutionally.
There's no different legal rights. Practicing a religion is a form of speech. The same form of speech protesters were using. It was entirely political. By and large the protesters agreed with the dominant political party, and people practicing religion generally didn't. There was no constitutional basis for their restriction. Unfortunately, a case like this has to be resolved at the higher courts and we know that those work on geologic time.
There's no different legal rights. Practicing a religion is a form of speech. The same form of speech protesters were using. It was entirely political. By and large the protesters agreed with the dominant political party, and people practicing religion generally didn't. There was no constitutional basis for their restriction. Unfortunately, a case like this has to be resolved at the higher courts and we know that those work on geologic time.
When it comes to huge government bureaucracies, Hanlon's Razor is double plus plus applicable. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor )
No, you can’t. It’s contaminated ground water, the food supply, and many other things. There is no way to reliable avoid it by personal choice.
Ah, a libertarian. Would you support everyone having to test every food product they buy in order to make sure they aren't getting exposed? Regulation would be tyranny after all.
(and no, I had no problem with being "forced" inside to stop people from dying - if you did, you might want to look in the mirror and consider your moral framework)
(and no, I had no problem with being "forced" inside to stop people from dying - if you did, you might want to look in the mirror and consider your moral framework)
> ...everyone having to test every food product they buy...
On the one hand - that would only push the problem one turtle down, to "who is testing the food testing supplies & equipment?".
OTOH - since the libertarians have a "zero out of N and counting" record of ever creating even a micro-scale functioning libertarian society...is it worth the electrons to bother refuting libertarian arguments?
On the one hand - that would only push the problem one turtle down, to "who is testing the food testing supplies & equipment?".
OTOH - since the libertarians have a "zero out of N and counting" record of ever creating even a micro-scale functioning libertarian society...is it worth the electrons to bother refuting libertarian arguments?
[deleted]
For those unaware, smokers would get drunk and pass out with lit cigarettes that would set their couch on fire and burn their house down. This lead to a push to cover everything in "flame retardants" which are more accurately called "human retardants", as they do little to actually prevent combustion from an effective source and are tied to everything from cancer to developmental issues.