I've had a morbid curiosity about the current vaccine predicament. Part of me wonders if many of the vaccine manufacturers knew that the vaccines weren't sterilizing because we have never created a sterilizing vaccine against a respiratory infection. The flu and cold should have clued us into the fruitlessness of such an argument. However, I wonder if the arrogant nature of the likes of Fauci and the CDC/NIH actually led to public messaging that undermined such concerns. So maybe Fauci and his incessant need to tout out these vaccines may have led us down this rabbit hole that we should have otherwise known not to go down. I've made these remarks when I refer to reinfection from respiratory infections which we know are common. Somehow this type of thinking leeched into the anti-vaccine community as well, with remarks that natural immunity is sterilizing- again, we should have known better than to have made such an argument.
So this really just seems like a consequence of improper messaging leading to the downstream events and false pretenses the public was provided. At least that's my general thought.
Unrealistic expectations in a sea of uncertainty. If only everyone just came out going "alright, we don't know if any of this will work and this is mostly a shot in the dark". Unfortunately scientists can be some of the most arrogant people out there, and hubris has no doubt been the driving force for much of what's been going on.
Not just money, but attention in all forms. Being idolized and worshipped among specific groups of people can no doubt have a role in one's ego, thus driving one to be less incentivized to argue that they are wrong. We should be careful of intense forms of idolatry coming from all sides.
Hubris, but also a perverse deification of "science". There is a sense among the current generation of "experts" that answers MUST be grounded in "science", and that everything MUST be justified by "science".
Which, ironically, is as unscientific a notion as can be had in the realm of public policy (or any policy).
This was something I noted about the face mask debacle back in 2020. Despite having ZERO evidence that universal masking would have any benefit at all, the "experts" contorted themselves every which way to define a scientific rationale for the masking, completely ignoring the equally valid (and arguably more persuasive) ethical arguments.
Had they grounded the masking recommendations and mandates in a "balance of harms" argument, I doubt they would have become the contentious issue they are today. The worst case scenario for the ethics approach would be that, if scientific data disproved the efficacy of mask mandates, there would be no serious impediment to their withdrawal--"okay, we tried it and it didn't work, so we'll try something else."
Instead, the CDC cobbled together a hodgepodge of dubious studies to show "see? masks really DO work!"
Not every question can be answered with "science", or even "Science™". As the "experts" and wokesters are constantly having to relearn.
That really comes down to proof by authority, not by scientific evidence. We didn't need the evidence if a mouthpiece we were told to trust said that this is how things work. Read/hear/see it and just obey.
This is generally the problem with scientists all around and their arrogance. This isn't new- this is something I saw even as an undergraduate when hearing P.I.'s discuss topics. There was just a level of hubris that makes one so recalcitrant from hearing other opinions.
Again, it's something we should look out for on both sides. When someone raises questions and the default response becomes "I'm a doctor" or "I have a Ph.D. so I'm qualified to talk", then we're not reasoning based on evidence, we're reasoning based on someone's position as an authority figure.
Typically, the ad verecundiam fallacy pertains to an appeal to an unqualified authority--someone who's background and knowledge do not support a legitimate claim of expertise.
However, even among "qualified" authorities, assertions must be supported by evidence, or they are merely opinions, and thus should be given the least evidentiary weight.
This is the conclusion of "experts", from a 2018 study in the BMJ assessing the role of "expert opinion" in clinical practice guidelines.
Thus, while not a true ad verecundiam fallacy, reliance on the unsupported opinion even of a qualified authority on a subject is still a logical fallacy of weak induction.
Any appeal to authority is thus logical fallacy rather than logical argument.
Yes. And the very condition that necessitates putting “science” in quotes goes to the heart of the issue. Those in power today (and maybe always?) see language as an means to an end (power) rather than a vehicle for characterizing truth. The same people who are demanding that we bow unthinkingly in submission to “science” fail to see that such demands discredit their truth claim in the same breath.
And the reason THEY can't stop lying is probably two-fold:
1. The lies they told were so big, those deceitful bureaucrats are going to be civilly and criminally found liable for murder.
2. The Pharma money spigot is probably still turned on, silk Hermes scarves are free for Brix and Company.
Nah, who am I kidding. The NIH will trump up some bogus sexual harassment charge on Fauci and retire him, a la Cuomo, and ignore the grifting and maim and murder of the last 2.5 years and focus on Climate Change. Everyone else will get the message and quietly retire.
The controlling statute for granting EUAs is section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, codified in the US Code at 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3.
"mitigating symptoms" would fall within the treatment criteria for receiving an EUA.
HOWEVER, a key element of the standard that is to be applied is "...the totality of scientific evidence available to the Secretary, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available,...."
The totality of scientific evidence for the inoculations and COVID-19 therapeutics, if properly considered, should be more than enough to disqualify all Big Pharma products pertaining to COVID-19 treatment and/or prevention. That the totality of scientific evidence is NOT being used in this fashion is yet another reason the FDA should be dissolved as a federal agency in its entirety.
I agree with your conclusions regarding the dissolution of the FDA. As it relates to the EUA, I think the more compelling evidence for this is the active propagandistic campaign against any early treatment (ivermectin and HCQ being the most visible).
The same federal regulation you referenced regarding EUA also lists as a requirement:
“that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition;” which goes a long way toward explaining why cheap, effective, safe, available treatments had to be vilified at all costs.
I would add the CDC to the list of organizations that should be disbanded. Too much money doing so much harm.
The demonization of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine is yet another in the FDA’s lengthy list of failures to comply with its own mandates.
In a purely legalistic sense, however, the FDA has an out in the word "adequate". The same gray area that damns them on the body of evidence regarding the mRNA inoculations tends to exonerate them on Ivermectin--the simple defense is Ivermectin is not "adequate".
Still, regardless of the evidence for and against Ivermectin, without solid evidence of efficacy and safety for the inoculations, they should not receive EUA.
I agree with you on Ivermectin, but view that as an amplifying argument rather than a core argument.
Agree that their most egregious crimes are the promotion of ineffective and arguably harmful (albeit VERY profitable) treatments. Their obfuscation, suppression, and lies about safe alternative (less profitable)treatments supported and justified their primary offense. My reason for pointing it out was that the absence of alternative treatments is a prerequisite condition for EUA that many (including me) would argue was not met. Seems pretty important when you consider the lack of safety data for EUA drugs at the outset and the suppression of safety data as the “emergency” progressed.
The scary part of the emergency declaration statute (§319 of the Public Health Service Act, codified at 42 USC 247d) is that there are ZERO standards and ZERO criteria to be met. The public health emergency declaration is ENTIRELY upon the whimsy of the HHS Secretary.
This bastardization of scientific endeavor--which I call Faucism in honor of Anthony "The Science™" Fauci--is something the world has seen before. It was part of the disaster of Lysenkoism which wrecked agriculture in the former Soviet Union and directly contributed to the tragedy of the Holodomor in Ukraine.
And you're right--it will fail because, despite the arrogant belief of the Faucists in their own inherent superiority, they really aren't smarter than everyone else, and they certainly aren't smart enough to defeat Mother Nature.
The gaslighting is leaving me so speechless, I'm beyond speechless.
You have no words to describe your speechlessness?
Yeah, that's a problem! ;)
That's how deep it runs! Speechless to the point of muteness.
...but she is still employed...... that's quite a super-power......
No, that's the civil service in this country. They have more job security than Supreme Court Justices.
I am in the WRONG profession...lol!!
I've had a morbid curiosity about the current vaccine predicament. Part of me wonders if many of the vaccine manufacturers knew that the vaccines weren't sterilizing because we have never created a sterilizing vaccine against a respiratory infection. The flu and cold should have clued us into the fruitlessness of such an argument. However, I wonder if the arrogant nature of the likes of Fauci and the CDC/NIH actually led to public messaging that undermined such concerns. So maybe Fauci and his incessant need to tout out these vaccines may have led us down this rabbit hole that we should have otherwise known not to go down. I've made these remarks when I refer to reinfection from respiratory infections which we know are common. Somehow this type of thinking leeched into the anti-vaccine community as well, with remarks that natural immunity is sterilizing- again, we should have known better than to have made such an argument.
So this really just seems like a consequence of improper messaging leading to the downstream events and false pretenses the public was provided. At least that's my general thought.
At a minimum, unrealistic expectations were set for the COVID inoculations, and for Paxlovid.
Unrealistic expectations in a sea of uncertainty. If only everyone just came out going "alright, we don't know if any of this will work and this is mostly a shot in the dark". Unfortunately scientists can be some of the most arrogant people out there, and hubris has no doubt been the driving force for much of what's been going on.
Amazing how powerful money can be in selectively reinforcing hubris...
Not just money, but attention in all forms. Being idolized and worshipped among specific groups of people can no doubt have a role in one's ego, thus driving one to be less incentivized to argue that they are wrong. We should be careful of intense forms of idolatry coming from all sides.
The love of money is the root of all evil, after all.
Hubris, but also a perverse deification of "science". There is a sense among the current generation of "experts" that answers MUST be grounded in "science", and that everything MUST be justified by "science".
Which, ironically, is as unscientific a notion as can be had in the realm of public policy (or any policy).
This was something I noted about the face mask debacle back in 2020. Despite having ZERO evidence that universal masking would have any benefit at all, the "experts" contorted themselves every which way to define a scientific rationale for the masking, completely ignoring the equally valid (and arguably more persuasive) ethical arguments.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/who-needs-science-when-you-have-expertshtml
Had they grounded the masking recommendations and mandates in a "balance of harms" argument, I doubt they would have become the contentious issue they are today. The worst case scenario for the ethics approach would be that, if scientific data disproved the efficacy of mask mandates, there would be no serious impediment to their withdrawal--"okay, we tried it and it didn't work, so we'll try something else."
Instead, the CDC cobbled together a hodgepodge of dubious studies to show "see? masks really DO work!"
Not every question can be answered with "science", or even "Science™". As the "experts" and wokesters are constantly having to relearn.
That really comes down to proof by authority, not by scientific evidence. We didn't need the evidence if a mouthpiece we were told to trust said that this is how things work. Read/hear/see it and just obey.
This is generally the problem with scientists all around and their arrogance. This isn't new- this is something I saw even as an undergraduate when hearing P.I.'s discuss topics. There was just a level of hubris that makes one so recalcitrant from hearing other opinions.
Again, it's something we should look out for on both sides. When someone raises questions and the default response becomes "I'm a doctor" or "I have a Ph.D. so I'm qualified to talk", then we're not reasoning based on evidence, we're reasoning based on someone's position as an authority figure.
Typically, the ad verecundiam fallacy pertains to an appeal to an unqualified authority--someone who's background and knowledge do not support a legitimate claim of expertise.
However, even among "qualified" authorities, assertions must be supported by evidence, or they are merely opinions, and thus should be given the least evidentiary weight.
This is the conclusion of "experts", from a 2018 study in the BMJ assessing the role of "expert opinion" in clinical practice guidelines.
https://ebm.bmj.com/content/22/5/164
Thus, while not a true ad verecundiam fallacy, reliance on the unsupported opinion even of a qualified authority on a subject is still a logical fallacy of weak induction.
Any appeal to authority is thus logical fallacy rather than logical argument.
Yes. And the very condition that necessitates putting “science” in quotes goes to the heart of the issue. Those in power today (and maybe always?) see language as an means to an end (power) rather than a vehicle for characterizing truth. The same people who are demanding that we bow unthinkingly in submission to “science” fail to see that such demands discredit their truth claim in the same breath.
Nice touch with the trademark.
The vulnerable vaxxed were given a false sense of security. How many died for that reason alone.
And the reason THEY can't stop lying is probably two-fold:
1. The lies they told were so big, those deceitful bureaucrats are going to be civilly and criminally found liable for murder.
2. The Pharma money spigot is probably still turned on, silk Hermes scarves are free for Brix and Company.
Nah, who am I kidding. The NIH will trump up some bogus sexual harassment charge on Fauci and retire him, a la Cuomo, and ignore the grifting and maim and murder of the last 2.5 years and focus on Climate Change. Everyone else will get the message and quietly retire.
If it doesn’t stop transmission. Then it doesn’t qualify for an EUA - right?
Definitely you can’t mandate something to “mitigate symptoms”...
Strictly speaking, when you look at the controlling statutes, the FDA CAN grant EUA for something that only mitigates symptoms.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/covid-19-the-endless-emergency
The controlling statute for granting EUAs is section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, codified in the US Code at 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3
"mitigating symptoms" would fall within the treatment criteria for receiving an EUA.
HOWEVER, a key element of the standard that is to be applied is "...the totality of scientific evidence available to the Secretary, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available,...."
The totality of scientific evidence for the inoculations and COVID-19 therapeutics, if properly considered, should be more than enough to disqualify all Big Pharma products pertaining to COVID-19 treatment and/or prevention. That the totality of scientific evidence is NOT being used in this fashion is yet another reason the FDA should be dissolved as a federal agency in its entirety.
I agree with your conclusions regarding the dissolution of the FDA. As it relates to the EUA, I think the more compelling evidence for this is the active propagandistic campaign against any early treatment (ivermectin and HCQ being the most visible).
The same federal regulation you referenced regarding EUA also lists as a requirement:
“that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition;” which goes a long way toward explaining why cheap, effective, safe, available treatments had to be vilified at all costs.
I would add the CDC to the list of organizations that should be disbanded. Too much money doing so much harm.
The demonization of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine is yet another in the FDA’s lengthy list of failures to comply with its own mandates.
In a purely legalistic sense, however, the FDA has an out in the word "adequate". The same gray area that damns them on the body of evidence regarding the mRNA inoculations tends to exonerate them on Ivermectin--the simple defense is Ivermectin is not "adequate".
Still, regardless of the evidence for and against Ivermectin, without solid evidence of efficacy and safety for the inoculations, they should not receive EUA.
I agree with you on Ivermectin, but view that as an amplifying argument rather than a core argument.
Agree that their most egregious crimes are the promotion of ineffective and arguably harmful (albeit VERY profitable) treatments. Their obfuscation, suppression, and lies about safe alternative (less profitable)treatments supported and justified their primary offense. My reason for pointing it out was that the absence of alternative treatments is a prerequisite condition for EUA that many (including me) would argue was not met. Seems pretty important when you consider the lack of safety data for EUA drugs at the outset and the suppression of safety data as the “emergency” progressed.
Plus it must be under a state of emergency. Another clause they have blatantly manipulated.
The scary part of the emergency declaration statute (§319 of the Public Health Service Act, codified at 42 USC 247d) is that there are ZERO standards and ZERO criteria to be met. The public health emergency declaration is ENTIRELY upon the whimsy of the HHS Secretary.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/247d
They don't have to manipulate it. They only have to use it.
And yet they DO mandate it.
They know we know they know we know and still, they lie.
--Sundance
This bastardization of scientific endeavor--which I call Faucism in honor of Anthony "The Science™" Fauci--is something the world has seen before. It was part of the disaster of Lysenkoism which wrecked agriculture in the former Soviet Union and directly contributed to the tragedy of the Holodomor in Ukraine.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/before-faucism-science-endured-lysenkoism
And you're right--it will fail because, despite the arrogant belief of the Faucists in their own inherent superiority, they really aren't smarter than everyone else, and they certainly aren't smart enough to defeat Mother Nature.