FDA meeting to pick next winter's flu shot is canceled, in ominous sign for US(endpts.com)
endpts.com
FDA meeting to pick next winter's flu shot is canceled, in ominous sign for US
https://endpts.com/fda-meeting-to-pick-next-winters-flu-shot-is-canceled/
132 comments
There is no strategy here except to disempower the establishment.
They are the establishment. The goal is destruction of government for tax breaks.
No, Trump etc are not the establishment. They are effectively a foreign invader that the immune system of the establishment wants to evict. But we've reached cordyceps levels of infection at this point.
If you want to see the establishment's viewpoints, read the NY Times (the news articles, and analysis, but not the op-eds).
If you want to see the establishment's viewpoints, read the NY Times (the news articles, and analysis, but not the op-eds).
the GOP has been pulling for this since the HW Bush era.
dismantling the Dept of Education, reducing spending across all areas, reducing government involvement in healthcare -- take a look at the Fortune 100 list and see how many healthcare companies are in the top ranks -- have been top priorities for decades.
they're just saying the quiet part loud now, and acting on it.
dismantling the Dept of Education, reducing spending across all areas, reducing government involvement in healthcare -- take a look at the Fortune 100 list and see how many healthcare companies are in the top ranks -- have been top priorities for decades.
they're just saying the quiet part loud now, and acting on it.
We simply now have a completely nuts anti-vax Secretary of Health. He probably actually thinks he's saving people from vaccine injury.
Nuts, crims, and greedy billionaires out to blow up all of government because they don't understand it, privatize everything, and slash Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security while lying about the tax breaks they're going to get out of it.
He was actually injured by the flu vaccine. That’s why his voice sounds the way it does
I don't think he's ever said this. As usual, providing a few citations we can follow would greatly help your case.
I thought he said the injured voice was due to worms eating his brain? It’s hard to keep up with such lunacy.
I don't think this is true? He has a neurological disease called Spasmodic dysphonia.
I can't find anything about this being related to a flu vaccine.
I can't find anything about this being related to a flu vaccine.
No, he claims that’s what caused it some years after being diagnosed.
Attempting to steel man the decision, they may not believe the vaccines work or are worth the expense and overhead.
They may even go one step deeper and believe the vaccines aren't proven properly to know whether they work well enough.
They may even go one step deeper and believe the vaccines aren't proven properly to know whether they work well enough.
> They may even go one step deeper and believe the vaccines aren't proven properly to know whether they work well enough.
They may even go further still and claim that the shot causes the flu—like RFK recently did with measles:
> Kennedy claimed the outbreak was likely caused by vaccines — contrary to evidence that showed low vaccination rates as the culprit. The false theory seems to stem from a misreading of a California Department of Public Health report that mentioned cases of a vaccine-induced rash, not vaccine-induced measles.
* https://www.nbcnews.com/news/texas-measles-outbreak-anti-vac...
Measles used to not be a thing:
> The US declared that measles had been "eliminated" in 2000, but the country has seen outbreaks in recent years amid a rise in anti-vaccine sentiment. The last US measles death was in 2015, according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
* https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyderx4v8go
They may even go further still and claim that the shot causes the flu—like RFK recently did with measles:
> Kennedy claimed the outbreak was likely caused by vaccines — contrary to evidence that showed low vaccination rates as the culprit. The false theory seems to stem from a misreading of a California Department of Public Health report that mentioned cases of a vaccine-induced rash, not vaccine-induced measles.
* https://www.nbcnews.com/news/texas-measles-outbreak-anti-vac...
Measles used to not be a thing:
> The US declared that measles had been "eliminated" in 2000, but the country has seen outbreaks in recent years amid a rise in anti-vaccine sentiment. The last US measles death was in 2015, according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
* https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyderx4v8go
> They may even go further still and claim that the shot causes the flu
If by "the flu" you're referring to the disease rather than a specific pathogen, a vaccine can cause the flu. Its common for vaccines to cause symptoms similar to the pathogen, though those symptoms are usually more mild.
Think about it for a second. A vaccine is meant to induce an immune response to allow the body to learn the pathogen before a natural infection. Symptoms are little more than the physical effects of your immune system doing its job and responding to a pathogen. Why wouldn't a good vaccine induce similar, though likely less severe, symptoms?
If by "the flu" you're referring to the disease rather than a specific pathogen, a vaccine can cause the flu. Its common for vaccines to cause symptoms similar to the pathogen, though those symptoms are usually more mild.
Think about it for a second. A vaccine is meant to induce an immune response to allow the body to learn the pathogen before a natural infection. Symptoms are little more than the physical effects of your immune system doing its job and responding to a pathogen. Why wouldn't a good vaccine induce similar, though likely less severe, symptoms?
A flu vaccine cannot "cause the flu". It can mimic an immune response similar to the flu, but this response is much weaker than what occurs during an actual infection, where a live pathogen is actively spreading and causing harm. The flu vaccine contains an inactivated ('dead') virus or a component of the virus, meaning it cannot replicate or cause illness in the way a live virus does.
The assumption I started my last comment with is extremely important. I'm assuming we are referring to "the flu" as the disease not the influenza virus itself.
Disease is just a named collection of symptoms, that it. A vaccine absolutely can cause those symptoms, and when they occur together it would meet the definition of the disease. That obviously doesn't mean the vaccine caused an influence infection.
Few disease definitions actually take into account severity of symptoms. There are some examples where we have two named diseases where one is distinguished only by being more severe, but unless I'm missing something the flu doesn't fit into that category.
Disease is just a named collection of symptoms, that it. A vaccine absolutely can cause those symptoms, and when they occur together it would meet the definition of the disease. That obviously doesn't mean the vaccine caused an influence infection.
Few disease definitions actually take into account severity of symptoms. There are some examples where we have two named diseases where one is distinguished only by being more severe, but unless I'm missing something the flu doesn't fit into that category.
It seems like the results will be somewhat predictable: the impact flu has every year is variable, with some years being incredibly bad and some being not that bad. Part of that is attributed to the vaccine rate, and how effective the vaccine is (this meeting is key to decision making about our expectations and how to make an effective vaccine), and part is simply random (based on too many correlated values, preventing good estimates of causation).
If this meeting is cancelled, we would expect the vaccine to be less effective and would see greater impact (simply because it wasn't tailored to the be the most likely effective vaccine), but due to all the variables I mentioned it could even appear that "things got better after we did this" (post hoc ergo propter hoc).
There is no steel man here, RFK just wants to demonstrate that his beliefs about viruses are true. We may or may not get enough unambiguous data to make conclusions about his beliefs in a year or two, but given the concomitant reduction in the effectiveness of the CDC due to Trump policies, and the sycophantic nature of the people being placed into leadership roles, we may simply never know because the data would not be collected, or the research not funded, or the publications retracted.
Or RFK could somehow be right and we see a huge magic increase in public health across the country (not seen in other countries that keep vaccination). I am not aware of very many scientists who believe this will happen.
If this meeting is cancelled, we would expect the vaccine to be less effective and would see greater impact (simply because it wasn't tailored to the be the most likely effective vaccine), but due to all the variables I mentioned it could even appear that "things got better after we did this" (post hoc ergo propter hoc).
There is no steel man here, RFK just wants to demonstrate that his beliefs about viruses are true. We may or may not get enough unambiguous data to make conclusions about his beliefs in a year or two, but given the concomitant reduction in the effectiveness of the CDC due to Trump policies, and the sycophantic nature of the people being placed into leadership roles, we may simply never know because the data would not be collected, or the research not funded, or the publications retracted.
Or RFK could somehow be right and we see a huge magic increase in public health across the country (not seen in other countries that keep vaccination). I am not aware of very many scientists who believe this will happen.
> If this meeting is cancelled, we would expect the vaccine to be less effective and would see greater impact (simply because it wasn't tailored to the be the most likely effective vaccine), but due to all the variables I mentioned it could even appear that "things got better after we did this" (post hoc ergo propter hoc).
There is an alternative here - a population left to fight an outbreak through natural immunity will be stronger in the end. That's definitely not a popular opinion, and it may not be worth the cost, but it does align with large drops in death rates of past outbreaks which generally happened before a vaccine was even available.
> There is no steel man here
That's not how steel manning an argument works. The whole point is to make the most generous version of the argument, usually assuming the best intent. There is always a most generous explanation that would lead to the argument made, you just may not like it or may not think its likely.
> Or RFK could somehow be right and we see a huge magic increase in public health across the country (not seen in other countries that keep vaccination). I am not aware of very many scientists who believe this will happen
I don't know RFK's stance particularly well, but I would guess that he wouldn't expect a noticeable increase in health over a short timeline and without improving peoples' health in general. I'm pretty sure I've seen him argue for removing toxins from our food and water, reducing dependence on pharmaceuticals, etc. All of those are important factors and it isn't realistic to assume that removing only one factor would magically fix everything.
There is an alternative here - a population left to fight an outbreak through natural immunity will be stronger in the end. That's definitely not a popular opinion, and it may not be worth the cost, but it does align with large drops in death rates of past outbreaks which generally happened before a vaccine was even available.
> There is no steel man here
That's not how steel manning an argument works. The whole point is to make the most generous version of the argument, usually assuming the best intent. There is always a most generous explanation that would lead to the argument made, you just may not like it or may not think its likely.
> Or RFK could somehow be right and we see a huge magic increase in public health across the country (not seen in other countries that keep vaccination). I am not aware of very many scientists who believe this will happen
I don't know RFK's stance particularly well, but I would guess that he wouldn't expect a noticeable increase in health over a short timeline and without improving peoples' health in general. I'm pretty sure I've seen him argue for removing toxins from our food and water, reducing dependence on pharmaceuticals, etc. All of those are important factors and it isn't realistic to assume that removing only one factor would magically fix everything.
> a population left to fight an outbreak through natural immunity will be stronger in the end.
Most people get the flu multiple times during their lives already. When is this natural immunity supposed to kick in and stop the elderly and infirm from dying from it?
Hell, why didn't this natural immunity protect the hundreds of millions of people who died prior to the introduction of vaccines from reoccurring outbreaks over the millennia? Never mind those who suffered lifetime disabilities from deafness to warped limbs.
Most people get the flu multiple times during their lives already. When is this natural immunity supposed to kick in and stop the elderly and infirm from dying from it?
Hell, why didn't this natural immunity protect the hundreds of millions of people who died prior to the introduction of vaccines from reoccurring outbreaks over the millennia? Never mind those who suffered lifetime disabilities from deafness to warped limbs.
> Measles mortality fell markedly (>90%) from the 19th century to mid-20th century prior to introduction of measles vaccine or the widespread use of antibiotics for secondary bacterial infections [1][2]
This story is similar for most infections we now vaccinate for, death rates were dropping dramatically years before vaccines were introduced.
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-inf... [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Measles+mort...
This story is similar for most infections we now vaccinate for, death rates were dropping dramatically years before vaccines were introduced.
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-inf... [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Measles+mort...
The flu isn't a stable thing though, there are multiple strains of what we call "the flu" and its constantly adapting/mutating. Previous infection is no guarantee of protection, just like previous vaccination us no guarantee.
> When is this natural immunity supposed to kick in and stop the elderly and infirm from dying from it?
That's a whole different ball game. You're talking about immunocompromised individuals, their immune system isn't well prepared to respond to natural infection PR vaccination. Vaccines can still help, though they're usually less effective and more likely to cause symptoms similar to the original disease you're vaccinating against.
A vaccine isn't a magic bullet for preventing death. Vaccines still depend on the immune system doing its job effectively.
> When is this natural immunity supposed to kick in and stop the elderly and infirm from dying from it?
That's a whole different ball game. You're talking about immunocompromised individuals, their immune system isn't well prepared to respond to natural infection PR vaccination. Vaccines can still help, though they're usually less effective and more likely to cause symptoms similar to the original disease you're vaccinating against.
A vaccine isn't a magic bullet for preventing death. Vaccines still depend on the immune system doing its job effectively.
Vaccines reinforce natural immunity.
So to be clear you’re arguing let’s kill a whole bunch of people to “increase” the population’s strength, although you express some mild concern about the “cost” of doing that? Is that the argument here?
So to be clear you’re arguing let’s kill a whole bunch of people to “increase” the population’s strength, although you express some mild concern about the “cost” of doing that? Is that the argument here?
Vaccines attempt to induce natural immunity not reinforce it. This is precisely why vaccines are less effective for those with preexisting conditions and immune disorders - their immune system can't as easily respond to and learn from the vaccine. An effective vaccine stimulates the immune system after introducing enough material similar to the natural pathogen that the immune system can learn to respond to it. I could just be misunderstanding your meaning hear, but "reinforce" sounds to me more like an additional layer of defence - a beam reinforcing a homes foundation is adds additional strength to existing beams rather than making the existing beams themselves stronger.
I'm not arguing that we kill anyone. You're implying that choosing not to intervene with vaccines is murder, which I would disagree with, but even then I left open the door for that cost to not be worth it.
My argument here was simply that if vaccines aren't used, as happened for effectively all of natural history, the population remaining (assuming some remain) is stronger for it.
That doesn't meant we should choose not to administer vaccines if we have them and they are proven safe and effective. That also does not mean that we should actively kill anyone, eugenics is a pretty messed up idea.
I'm not arguing that we kill anyone. You're implying that choosing not to intervene with vaccines is murder, which I would disagree with, but even then I left open the door for that cost to not be worth it.
My argument here was simply that if vaccines aren't used, as happened for effectively all of natural history, the population remaining (assuming some remain) is stronger for it.
That doesn't meant we should choose not to administer vaccines if we have them and they are proven safe and effective. That also does not mean that we should actively kill anyone, eugenics is a pretty messed up idea.
> This is precisely why vaccines are less effective for those with preexisting conditions and immune disorders - their immune system can't as easily respond to and learn from the vaccine.
You've missed a significant strength of vaccines by focusing on individuals rather than on populations.
Vaccines slow the transmission rate through a population and reduce the severity of infection.
In a population with a high vaccination rates those few with weak immune systems have less exposure to infection.
It's similar to back burning and fuel reduction in combating wildfires.
You've missed a significant strength of vaccines by focusing on individuals rather than on populations.
Vaccines slow the transmission rate through a population and reduce the severity of infection.
In a population with a high vaccination rates those few with weak immune systems have less exposure to infection.
It's similar to back burning and fuel reduction in combating wildfires.
I understand the argument for herd immunity, I've just never seen a study proving it out. The idea is compelling and modelling studies seem to show that its possible, but that is still different from a controlled study showing it happening.
Early on in the Covid pandemic response claims of herd immunity were being thrown around and Fauci was claiming a threshold of 60-65% vaccine rate for it to work. As time went on that number kept going up, eventually he admitted that they used a low number to start with only because they didn't think people would comply if the required vaccine rate seemed unrealistically high.
Herd immunity is almost certainly a thing at a certain immunity rate, the question that goes unanswered is what that rate actually is. For there to even be a case for vaccine mandates, of even just the arguments that people ought to get vaccinated due to herd immunity, we have to know the % of immunized population and the risk of vaccine side effects.
My understanding is that we don't have a solid understanding of the exact tipping point for herd immunity, and that at least during the covid pandemic response we didn't have a solid understanding of the true risks of adverse side effects to the vaccines either.
Early on in the Covid pandemic response claims of herd immunity were being thrown around and Fauci was claiming a threshold of 60-65% vaccine rate for it to work. As time went on that number kept going up, eventually he admitted that they used a low number to start with only because they didn't think people would comply if the required vaccine rate seemed unrealistically high.
Herd immunity is almost certainly a thing at a certain immunity rate, the question that goes unanswered is what that rate actually is. For there to even be a case for vaccine mandates, of even just the arguments that people ought to get vaccinated due to herd immunity, we have to know the % of immunized population and the risk of vaccine side effects.
My understanding is that we don't have a solid understanding of the exact tipping point for herd immunity, and that at least during the covid pandemic response we didn't have a solid understanding of the true risks of adverse side effects to the vaccines either.
We know how many people died before we had vaccines, especially children. There is no argument here. We eradicated or almost eradicated a whole bunch of terrible diseases with vaccines.
What you're proposing here is simply murder. We know what would happen, many more people would die.
What you're proposing here is simply murder. We know what would happen, many more people would die.
> Measles mortality fell markedly (>90%) from the 19th century to mid-20th century prior to introduction of measles vaccine or the widespread use of antibiotics for secondary bacterial infections [1][2]
This story is similar for most infections we now vaccinate for, death rates were dropping dramatically years before vaccines were introduced.
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-inf... [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Measles+mort...
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-inf... [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Measles+mort...
What would make it murder?
I wouldn't propose that people should be stopped from taking a vaccine if they want it.
I'm a strong supporter of informed consent. In this context that simply means that people need to know the pros and cons of a vaccine, what isn't known or scientifically studied yet, and they can make their own mind up.
I wouldn't propose that people should be stopped from taking a vaccine if they want it.
I'm a strong supporter of informed consent. In this context that simply means that people need to know the pros and cons of a vaccine, what isn't known or scientifically studied yet, and they can make their own mind up.
We know more people would die without vaccines. There is plenty of data on the classic vaccines. If you tell people something else you're lying.
And herd immunity protects those that can't be protected by vaccines, your "experiment" would put them at risk as well.
And herd immunity protects those that can't be protected by vaccines, your "experiment" would put them at risk as well.
> We know more people would die without vaccines.
We don't keep up any relevant research to prove that out. Vaccine studies don't use placebo controls, meaning we only know how they compare against what is usually the last approved vaccine. If you tell people that we know for certain that more people would die today without a particular vaccine you're lying, we simply can't know that without testing it.
> And herd immunity protects those that can't be protected by vaccines, your "experiment" would put them at risk as well.
How can we know herd immunity works as we predict it should without testing it? Its an untested hypothesis, and that's totally fine if we're not willing to risk testing it. We can't act as though it is scientific fact at that point though, its a hypothesis that a large majority agree with but that has yet to be tested in any significant way.
We don't keep up any relevant research to prove that out. Vaccine studies don't use placebo controls, meaning we only know how they compare against what is usually the last approved vaccine. If you tell people that we know for certain that more people would die today without a particular vaccine you're lying, we simply can't know that without testing it.
> And herd immunity protects those that can't be protected by vaccines, your "experiment" would put them at risk as well.
How can we know herd immunity works as we predict it should without testing it? Its an untested hypothesis, and that's totally fine if we're not willing to risk testing it. We can't act as though it is scientific fact at that point though, its a hypothesis that a large majority agree with but that has yet to be tested in any significant way.
Peter principle meets Idiocracy. People will die unnecessarily because of incompetency and failure of leadership.
Idiocracy is how we got here, not principle.
[flagged]
For people who get the flu? I thought that was just for mental health problems.
I hope there's a slightly different timeline where people with hopelessness or depression have a place in nature to pursue purpose, community, diet, exercise, and meaningful labour. I think we all know in our gut that this would be of incredible benefit to most of these people. And I hope the public in this world are horrified by the idea that anyone could instead pump them full of addictive or unknown drugs and leave them to fester in their obesity, drug dependency, poverty, loneliness, emptiness and misery.
Our current approach isn't working.
Our current approach isn't working.
I don’t entirely disagree with you but this is a _very_ different world, that requires unraveling like everything about our modern society. I don’t think there’s a whole lot of overlap between RFK jr’s vision of the world, and the current chainsaw approach to government that calls every piece or government spending an entitlement.
Our current approach is to not fund adequately support our citizens and if you’re poor, good luck.
The public, thus far, is generally ok with this. They’d be even more okay shipping them to underfunded camps where they are even more out of sight out of mind.
The public, thus far, is generally ok with this. They’d be even more okay shipping them to underfunded camps where they are even more out of sight out of mind.
It's about encouraging the free market. Drug makers will naturally compete and it's up to the American public to reward the flu shot with the most efficacy, or in some cases, not take a shot at all and rely on natural immunization. This will spur competition and bring prices down.
At least that's what this forum has taught me.
At least that's what this forum has taught me.
That’s an interesting comment. I often see this repeated - that HN as a whole leans libertarian - but I don’t see it personally. Just as many people will jump in to point out that market failures are common for reasons of monopolistic behaviour, regulatory capture, etc, as will people regurgitating Reagan, Thatcher and Thiel.
Whoops, gave away my political leanings.
Whoops, gave away my political leanings.
Last I spoke to a nurse about this she explained something interesting to me - in selecting the next flu shot they actually watch the opposite hemisphere to predict most likely strain to vax.
So despite US shenanigans rest of world may still be OK
So despite US shenanigans rest of world may still be OK
Both hemispheres do this if I'm not mistaken. They look to the other hemisphere's winter and expect that 6 month delay will still help predict what's coming.
Flu strains usually originate from Asia (usually China), where flu is more likely to jump from chicken to human. But that was in the past, it is completely possible that the USA could move backwards in health and become the new spot where flu jumps to humans (eg by not culling flocks where infections are found because of rising egg prices). Trump could do a lot of damage in four years, we might end up completely flipped from where were a decade ago by the end of it (China as the preeminent respected world power, the USA as a big nation of unvaxed people where bird flu jumps to humans, Fujian Type N flu is replaced with Tenesee type M flu)
You're making a lot of assumptions here.
China has seemed to play a larger role in novel viruses with zoological origins. The average flu season isn't driven by novel viruses, if they were every year would progress more similarly to CoV2.
I've never seen a study comparing the relative efficacy of culling vs. not culling chicken flocks. Unless you have sources for that, you're assuming culling is always best. One consideration there is that culling entire flocks ensures that we are never able to select breeding animals based on those with natural immunity. Maybe that is the right choice, but I don't think we have ever studied that.
Egg prices haven't yet seemed to play an impact in flock culling rates. We have murdered 166 million birds based on a recent article [1] - extremely few of those were ever tested, they just happened to be in a house with a bird either confirmed or suspected of infection. At least based on that article, culling hasn't helped contain the outbreak.
[1] https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-02-26/poultry...
China has seemed to play a larger role in novel viruses with zoological origins. The average flu season isn't driven by novel viruses, if they were every year would progress more similarly to CoV2.
I've never seen a study comparing the relative efficacy of culling vs. not culling chicken flocks. Unless you have sources for that, you're assuming culling is always best. One consideration there is that culling entire flocks ensures that we are never able to select breeding animals based on those with natural immunity. Maybe that is the right choice, but I don't think we have ever studied that.
Egg prices haven't yet seemed to play an impact in flock culling rates. We have murdered 166 million birds based on a recent article [1] - extremely few of those were ever tested, they just happened to be in a house with a bird either confirmed or suspected of infection. At least based on that article, culling hasn't helped contain the outbreak.
[1] https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-02-26/poultry...
The CDC/FDA assumed culling was better, I’m not an expert. And the point has always been to prevent a human outbreak, not reduce egg prices.
Trump is coming in and saying culling isn’t needed, and he is finding experts that agree with his opinion to back it up. Whatever policy choice coming up, it will be one where science is abused to justify a pre-determined decision rather than using science to come up with the right decision.
Trump is coming in and saying culling isn’t needed, and he is finding experts that agree with his opinion to back it up. Whatever policy choice coming up, it will be one where science is abused to justify a pre-determined decision rather than using science to come up with the right decision.
> The CDC/FDA assumed culling was better, I’m not an expert.
You are taking an agency's assumption as a fact though, its functionally yours at that point. It doesn't matter if someone else says it, it matters if you agree with the logic of how they got there.
> And the point has always been to prevent a human outbreak, not reduce egg prices.
Human transmission has yet to be proven. Culling hundreds of millions of birds to avoid human transmission when we don't even know if that's possible seems idiotic at best, sadistic at worst.
You are taking an agency's assumption as a fact though, its functionally yours at that point. It doesn't matter if someone else says it, it matters if you agree with the logic of how they got there.
> And the point has always been to prevent a human outbreak, not reduce egg prices.
Human transmission has yet to be proven. Culling hundreds of millions of birds to avoid human transmission when we don't even know if that's possible seems idiotic at best, sadistic at worst.
> Human transmission has yet to be proven.
Only the quacks say that, the science is firmly in the corner that not only is bird (or bat) to human transmission is possible, it has already happened a few times this season.
This is where having someone like Trump as president isn’t just annoying, but downright deadly.
Only the quacks say that, the science is firmly in the corner that not only is bird (or bat) to human transmission is possible, it has already happened a few times this season.
This is where having someone like Trump as president isn’t just annoying, but downright deadly.
[deleted]
> Only the quacks say that
Not long ago the CDC itself was saying that mammals couldn't catch this strain of avian flu and we had nothing to worry about. Then they found a few milk cows believed to be infected, but they assured us it couldn't kill cows and that the infection couldn't be transmitted through milk.
Where along the way did we go from scientific knowledge that it couldn't jump to humans to only quacks believing such nonsense? More importantly, where are the controlled studies proving transmission from infected birds to humans?
Proving transmissibility of such a pathogen would require something along the lines of Koch's postulates. Unless I missed something extremely important, we haven't done this type of study yet.
Not long ago the CDC itself was saying that mammals couldn't catch this strain of avian flu and we had nothing to worry about. Then they found a few milk cows believed to be infected, but they assured us it couldn't kill cows and that the infection couldn't be transmitted through milk.
Where along the way did we go from scientific knowledge that it couldn't jump to humans to only quacks believing such nonsense? More importantly, where are the controlled studies proving transmission from infected birds to humans?
Proving transmissibility of such a pathogen would require something along the lines of Koch's postulates. Unless I missed something extremely important, we haven't done this type of study yet.
I'm not following what CDC said as I'm not from the US, but in my country we had early warning of a big flu season. Poultry farmers were advised to get the flu vaccine in October last year (it's decentralised in my country so it might only have been a local directive), so I doubt a scientific paper ever said 'mammals can't catch this strain'.
My point wasn't that transmission had been scientifically disproven though. My point was that the CDC itself was saying that this avian flu couldn't jump to humans - they no longer say this but the earlier commenter claimed that only a quack would say human transmission hasn't been proven.
Where I would expect a scientific paper to come in is to provide a controlled study show transmission from an infected bird to a healthy human. Maybe that has been done, but if so I haven't seen it or ever heard it mentioned anywhere.
Where I would expect a scientific paper to come in is to provide a controlled study show transmission from an infected bird to a healthy human. Maybe that has been done, but if so I haven't seen it or ever heard it mentioned anywhere.
> My point was that the CDC itself was saying that this avian flu couldn't jump to humans - they no longer say this but the earlier commenter claimed that only a quack would say human transmission hasn't been proven.
Almost all medical research is in the field, and they don't do controlled studies on humans anymore to see if they can get bird flu or not by being in contact with infected birds (can't get it passed the ethics board). It feels like I'm arguing with someone on the spectrum, who states that "we didn't think it was this way before, but now we think it? Impossible!" It is an exhausting argument and I really don't think it is worth our time, except that guy is now president - sigh.
Almost all medical research is in the field, and they don't do controlled studies on humans anymore to see if they can get bird flu or not by being in contact with infected birds (can't get it passed the ethics board). It feels like I'm arguing with someone on the spectrum, who states that "we didn't think it was this way before, but now we think it? Impossible!" It is an exhausting argument and I really don't think it is worth our time, except that guy is now president - sigh.
You're still missing the point of my raising that the CDC in recent history claimed that transmissibility isn't possible from birds to humans. They didn't claim we don't know if its possible, they claimed that it isn't which implies that scientific research has found that transmission didn't work.
Raising that here is important because in an earlier comment you said only a quack would claim that transmissibility hasn't been proven.
You even seem to acknowledge here that it hasn't been tested or proven yet, or that we even bother testing it today. Field research is all well and good, and it often is the best we can do in the moment, but that doesn't change what the research and data shows.
We don't do controlled studies to test transmissibility, meaning we don't test for transmissibility, meaning it has yet to be proven. I'm not sure how that chain of reasoning leaps to the realm of quackery.
> "we didn't think it was this way before, but now we think it? Impossible!"
There's a solid argument behind this view though (to be clear, I don't see that as an argument Trump has made).
Science is a well defined process. When we haven't studied transmissibility for whatever reason we simply can't say that transmission isn't possible.
As soon as the CDC gets out over their skis and makes that claim without scientific research to back it up they turned a scientific question into a political one. They can't say whether transmission is possible or not. By making this claim they're only trying to reassure the public of something they want people to believe but can't actually prove.
Raising that here is important because in an earlier comment you said only a quack would claim that transmissibility hasn't been proven.
You even seem to acknowledge here that it hasn't been tested or proven yet, or that we even bother testing it today. Field research is all well and good, and it often is the best we can do in the moment, but that doesn't change what the research and data shows.
We don't do controlled studies to test transmissibility, meaning we don't test for transmissibility, meaning it has yet to be proven. I'm not sure how that chain of reasoning leaps to the realm of quackery.
> "we didn't think it was this way before, but now we think it? Impossible!"
There's a solid argument behind this view though (to be clear, I don't see that as an argument Trump has made).
Science is a well defined process. When we haven't studied transmissibility for whatever reason we simply can't say that transmission isn't possible.
As soon as the CDC gets out over their skis and makes that claim without scientific research to back it up they turned a scientific question into a political one. They can't say whether transmission is possible or not. By making this claim they're only trying to reassure the public of something they want people to believe but can't actually prove.
This is a remarkably stupid decision. Flu vaccines are incredibly successful not just from a public health standpoint but also a business productivity standpoint.
I guess we're going to relearn this lesson the hard way. Especially with businesses also demanding people come back to the office to work.
I guess we're going to relearn this lesson the hard way. Especially with businesses also demanding people come back to the office to work.
> Flu vaccines are incredibly successfu
A big part of the problem is a lot of people don't understand this. How often do you hear people say, "I got the flu vaccine and still got the flu".
However, most people who say they have "the flu" are using the term colloquially and it is unlikely that they actually had influenza.
Further, as we saw with the COVID vaccines, people are incapable of understanding that vaccines don't create an impenetrable barrier. Instead it lowers risk of infection and increases likelihood of a milder case.
A big part of the problem is a lot of people don't understand this. How often do you hear people say, "I got the flu vaccine and still got the flu".
However, most people who say they have "the flu" are using the term colloquially and it is unlikely that they actually had influenza.
Further, as we saw with the COVID vaccines, people are incapable of understanding that vaccines don't create an impenetrable barrier. Instead it lowers risk of infection and increases likelihood of a milder case.
I got a really bad flu last year because I delayed my shots. At 48, it was nothing like I experienced when I was younger, just mucus filling my chest for a week, uncomfortable to breathe with a scratchy wheeze. I don’t mind getting the flu I got when I was younger, but I will get my vaccinations on time to avoid going through that again.
I get how flu vaccines become more important as you age, COVID also (lest you win a Herman Caine award). Younger people getting vaccinated also helps limit transmission to older people who are more likely to die from it, but doing so requires a bit more empathy than just pure self interest.
I get how flu vaccines become more important as you age, COVID also (lest you win a Herman Caine award). Younger people getting vaccinated also helps limit transmission to older people who are more likely to die from it, but doing so requires a bit more empathy than just pure self interest.
Hopefully we do relearn, and don't just unlearn.
[deleted]
Well I guess once the Bird Flu jumps to Humans, which due to Trump's and Musk's Stupidity will happen, and next years flu arrival we will have another yet another Trump Caused pandemic.
[deleted]
To be fair, a fair share of pandemics, antibiotic resistance, and climate change common root cause is industrial meat agriculture. Ano-ochlo-kleptocrats are and will screw up the basis of organized civilization in America because they don't know anything about anything.
> ... "because they don't know anything about anything."
And because like Trump and Musk, many (most?) of them truly believe they know more about everything than anyone else (more than even the experts).
And because like Trump and Musk, many (most?) of them truly believe they know more about everything than anyone else (more than even the experts).
[deleted]
frogperson(7)
Don't want to sign up.
Are we not going to get a flu vaccine? Companies that make the vaccines can't do this on their own anyway?
Are we not going to get a flu vaccine? Companies that make the vaccines can't do this on their own anyway?
The flu vaccines target specific strains that they expect to be common during flu season. In order to do this, the FDA collaborates with a bunch of different agencies and groups around the world to do collect data, track flu viruses etc. The sort of thing that a government agency is generally really good at doing and companies are generally really bad at.
Normally it's around this time period that decisions around which strains to target are discussed, because it takes around six months to incubate the vaccine. Then once a decision is made, that information is passed to manufacturers.
Without this meeting, there's no guidance around which strains to target. Without guidance, manufacturers have no clue what to do. So the odds are it either highly delays the vaccine if not promptly rescheduled or we simply just don't get one this season.
Normally it's around this time period that decisions around which strains to target are discussed, because it takes around six months to incubate the vaccine. Then once a decision is made, that information is passed to manufacturers.
Without this meeting, there's no guidance around which strains to target. Without guidance, manufacturers have no clue what to do. So the odds are it either highly delays the vaccine if not promptly rescheduled or we simply just don't get one this season.
> manufacturers have no clue what to do.
Sounds like bad news. But can the manufacturers meet among themselves to hash it out? Would they? And if they did, would they make a worse or different decision than if the FDA were involved?
Just trying to see a way this could turn out ok.
Sounds like bad news. But can the manufacturers meet among themselves to hash it out? Would they? And if they did, would they make a worse or different decision than if the FDA were involved?
Just trying to see a way this could turn out ok.
The decisions will still be made, but by other Northern Hemisphere countries. Manufacturing might remain local, since the infrastructure is there. Or maybe that will get shutdown if it is cheaper to ship from India or China.
I'm pretty sure manufacturers could, but that would increase their costs. The US did it for them for free.
So we're either going to get insanely expensive flu vaccines or none at all.
So we're either going to get insanely expensive flu vaccines or none at all.
[deleted]
This is absolutely idiotic behavior on the part of the government. However, I wouldn’t be surprised to see an announcement within the week that the manufacturers are having their own meeting. They aren’t going to destroy years of goodwill and a thriving vaccine business just because a total flake got put in charge of the FDA for what is hopefully a limited time.
Presumably it may be rescheduled? Let's say personnel is in flux at the moment. Might make sense to bump out an important meeting until things stabilize?
There is so much breathless hysteria in the media predicting or implying a prediction, and when 99% of it fails to materialize there is never a follow up.
There is so much breathless hysteria in the media predicting or implying a prediction, and when 99% of it fails to materialize there is never a follow up.
Well considering the FDA gave no information or plans to reschedule to committee members that seems unlikely.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/26/us/politics/fda-flu-vacci...
> The F.D.A. sent an email to members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee on Monday afternoon informing them of the cancellation, according to a senior official familiar with the decision. There was no reason given. The panel was to meet March 13.
> One committee member, Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, an outspoken critic of Mr. Kennedy, confirmed the cancellation and warned that it could interfere with or delay production of flu vaccines.
> “It’s a six-month production cycle,” Dr. Offit said. “So one can only assume that we’re not picking flu strains this year.”
Considering the flu kills tens of thousands every year and hospitalized hundreds of thousands more, with the potential of evolving to be more lethal - yes this is important.
If the Trump, GOP and Musk fucked up staffing by firing people who have the expertise to make these decisions, yes they are at fault. If RFK Jr is interfering with this for his anti-vax and anti-science crusade, he is also at vault.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/26/us/politics/fda-flu-vacci...
> The F.D.A. sent an email to members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee on Monday afternoon informing them of the cancellation, according to a senior official familiar with the decision. There was no reason given. The panel was to meet March 13.
> One committee member, Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, an outspoken critic of Mr. Kennedy, confirmed the cancellation and warned that it could interfere with or delay production of flu vaccines.
> “It’s a six-month production cycle,” Dr. Offit said. “So one can only assume that we’re not picking flu strains this year.”
Considering the flu kills tens of thousands every year and hospitalized hundreds of thousands more, with the potential of evolving to be more lethal - yes this is important.
If the Trump, GOP and Musk fucked up staffing by firing people who have the expertise to make these decisions, yes they are at fault. If RFK Jr is interfering with this for his anti-vax and anti-science crusade, he is also at vault.
> “So one can only assume”
They are “assuming” a major unannounced policy change based on… a single meeting cancelation. By this cause/effect protocol, I have personally witnessed dozens of multi billion dollar project cancellations, or so I assume.
RFK Jr has never proposed canning the vaccine program. He wants certain studies performed, which presumably would run in parallel with the existing program.
The constant hysteria really makes me want to quit the internet. It seems to get worse every year.
They are “assuming” a major unannounced policy change based on… a single meeting cancelation. By this cause/effect protocol, I have personally witnessed dozens of multi billion dollar project cancellations, or so I assume.
RFK Jr has never proposed canning the vaccine program. He wants certain studies performed, which presumably would run in parallel with the existing program.
The constant hysteria really makes me want to quit the internet. It seems to get worse every year.
It's a highly time sensitive meeting around setting manufacturing targets for the upcoming flu season. It's the kind of thing that when delayed causes actual adverse problems as opposed to cancelling a sprint standup or whatever.
Could it be possible you are wrong, and it is as bad as everyone here seems to think?
I find (after a verrrrry long time of arguing with people on the internet), when somebody acts as obtuse as the person you're replying to, they really aren't ignorant, they're trolling, or looking for an emotional argument. One of the common tells is making an obtuse statement that's fairly vague (to draw out responses) and then writing long replies to those that show much more cynicism/disingenous, which provoke people further, followed by "see! this is just an example of how deluded the people who disagree with me are!"
[deleted]
have you considered the possibility that despite sanewashing this, it is really a problem? That the current administration is not normal? That perhaps there really is cause for alarm?
What studies is he proposing that have not been done many times before?
The articles are not hysterical and give good info, such as:
- vaccines take 6 months to make
- FDA spokesperson did not respond for comment
- its not the first meeting to be cancelled
- an earlier CDC quarterly meeting was postponed to accommodate "public comment"
The articles are not hysterical and give good info, such as:
- vaccines take 6 months to make
- FDA spokesperson did not respond for comment
- its not the first meeting to be cancelled
- an earlier CDC quarterly meeting was postponed to accommodate "public comment"
The anti vaccine movement that RFK Jr grifts off of is the hysteria.
Worrying about the grifter crank harming public health is level headed...
Worrying about the grifter crank harming public health is level headed...
you don't cancel something on short notice and not provide a follow up date. That's not the way any of this works. It's not "breathless", they literally picked an antivaxxer to head up the US government's health agency. That's not breathless either, it's a fact, backed by years of evidence. They are trying to dismantle all programs that help the general populace. The people heading up this charge want everything to be in the hands of private millionaires and billionaires. Merely look at whom was picked to head up this stuff. I don't think anyone paying attention can miss something so obvious
What media coverage would you approve of?
This isn't entirely cynical, I do assume there are some pragmatists who might think this way.