Medical ethicists are, quite literally, some of the most evil people in the world. It was a field I was so excited about, as a Christian going into the secular world of modern medicine, but I quickly realized most of medical ethics was devoted to coming up with fancy sounding academic reasons to do really evil things. Peter singer’s killing of young children is the most obvious example, but there are many many others.
“When we become doctors, we make a promise to our patients – to all our patients, including the vulnerable and the forgotten, not just the popular ones. Modern medical ethics seems built upon finding exceptions to that promise, exploiting loopholes and crafting justifications to help us break it. Sure, the ethicists are right behind us in fervently upholding certain commitments: when it comes to patients who want to die, we are assured, autonomy is key. Trouble is, when it comes to patients who want to live, all of a sudden autonomy ain’t so hot, the ethicists start hungrily eyeing those feeding tubes, and we are treated to sophisticated disquisitions about futility of care and quality of life. It may very well be that ethicists are sincere deep thinkers who spend many a long night of the soul agonizing over these ideas, and that it is simply a remarkable coincidence that, on every single issue – babies, the elderly, the disabled, the suicidal, the comatose – they end up choosing death over life. When every flip of a coin turns up heads, though, you’re not paranoid to suspect it’s weighted. ”
How absurd. One can identify a gap in knowledge without being a researcher capable of filling it. Incredibly arrogant position. We see too much of that in medical practice these days.
And FYI, the NIH is planning or has already begun just such a study.
1. So the first statement re: "Headwinds" is false to the tune of $50M from NIH.
2. Identifying a "gap" in knowledge implies that there is a way to fill the gap with a rational study. There is no rational study that can be designed to assess "the cumulative effect of the US schedule". Not understanding this is due to ignorance of trial design and epidemiological research.
3. "Arrogance" is in the eye of the beholder. Calling names gets us nowhere.
My big question on the vax in pregnancy question is this - what sane educated pregnant woman would agree to be in such a clinical trial, especially early in pregnancy?
We KNOW how vulnerable a fetus is in the first trimester, even in the second. I went through hell with 24/7 nausea for almost my entire pregnancy but would not take a medication. Even gave up coffee.
We have it dinned into us to stay away from biologics while pregnant, unless absolutely essential.
Only the most ignorant expectant mother would agree to any clinical trial for a new biologic.
You would never be able to run a trial with a good randomized group, because educated women won't agree to it. The low uptake you cite does not surprise me at all, though a participation rate of zero would have been the best news.
Then there is this GAO Report from as far back as 2006: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-07-49.pdf 10+ years to bring a new drug to market - then in 2020, it was taking 9 months!!! The 10+ years are necessary to build nonclinical and clinical supply chains that have been proven safe after scrutiny by FDA of the electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD). It did not happen - why not? Is the question that needs to be asked…
Medical ethicists are, quite literally, some of the most evil people in the world. It was a field I was so excited about, as a Christian going into the secular world of modern medicine, but I quickly realized most of medical ethics was devoted to coming up with fancy sounding academic reasons to do really evil things. Peter singer’s killing of young children is the most obvious example, but there are many many others.
Much more here:
https://gaty.substack.com/p/the-case-against-ethics
“When we become doctors, we make a promise to our patients – to all our patients, including the vulnerable and the forgotten, not just the popular ones. Modern medical ethics seems built upon finding exceptions to that promise, exploiting loopholes and crafting justifications to help us break it. Sure, the ethicists are right behind us in fervently upholding certain commitments: when it comes to patients who want to die, we are assured, autonomy is key. Trouble is, when it comes to patients who want to live, all of a sudden autonomy ain’t so hot, the ethicists start hungrily eyeing those feeding tubes, and we are treated to sophisticated disquisitions about futility of care and quality of life. It may very well be that ethicists are sincere deep thinkers who spend many a long night of the soul agonizing over these ideas, and that it is simply a remarkable coincidence that, on every single issue – babies, the elderly, the disabled, the suicidal, the comatose – they end up choosing death over life. When every flip of a coin turns up heads, though, you’re not paranoid to suspect it’s weighted. ”
Say I wanted to do a study that would expose whether vaccines cause autism. Headwinds!
They have been done, multiple times. Are you saying that you are not aware of those, or that you don't think they were valid - and if not, why?
There's been no study on the cumulative effect of the US schedule, which is one of, if not THE, longest in the world.
Okay, can you design a study that will answer your question? If not, then the question is vacant.
How absurd. One can identify a gap in knowledge without being a researcher capable of filling it. Incredibly arrogant position. We see too much of that in medical practice these days.
And FYI, the NIH is planning or has already begun just such a study.
1. So the first statement re: "Headwinds" is false to the tune of $50M from NIH.
2. Identifying a "gap" in knowledge implies that there is a way to fill the gap with a rational study. There is no rational study that can be designed to assess "the cumulative effect of the US schedule". Not understanding this is due to ignorance of trial design and epidemiological research.
3. "Arrogance" is in the eye of the beholder. Calling names gets us nowhere.
4. Peace out.
The NIH plans exactly such a study. I would guess FL will provide them with some options, given their enlightened Surgeon General.
OF COURSE a rational study is possible.
Not to mention that until the 1987 liability waiver, the US schedule itself was much shorter. And EU schedules are way shorter NOW.
You are attempting the usual PH nonsense of trying to shut down legit questions with faux authority.
Sorry, buddy. We no longer buy the BS of phony experts like you. Jay Bhattacharya has announced this NIH study.
And no, arrogance like yours is readily recognized. We laugh and ignore.
My big question on the vax in pregnancy question is this - what sane educated pregnant woman would agree to be in such a clinical trial, especially early in pregnancy?
We KNOW how vulnerable a fetus is in the first trimester, even in the second. I went through hell with 24/7 nausea for almost my entire pregnancy but would not take a medication. Even gave up coffee.
We have it dinned into us to stay away from biologics while pregnant, unless absolutely essential.
Only the most ignorant expectant mother would agree to any clinical trial for a new biologic.
You would never be able to run a trial with a good randomized group, because educated women won't agree to it. The low uptake you cite does not surprise me at all, though a participation rate of zero would have been the best news.
The same pregnant women who took the clot shot, mostly highly educated women
Then there is this GAO Report from as far back as 2006: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-07-49.pdf 10+ years to bring a new drug to market - then in 2020, it was taking 9 months!!! The 10+ years are necessary to build nonclinical and clinical supply chains that have been proven safe after scrutiny by FDA of the electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD). It did not happen - why not? Is the question that needs to be asked…
Vinay, the Free Press article is paywalled. Is there equivalent info elsewhere?
For a time it seemed to be open. I was able to read all of it. But not for long. Not sure what's up.
Think it’s time to expose the myth that has allowed the pharma industry to seduce the world - this short 2 minute animation explains it: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zdseuyxcftsvcif5wz8k7/296TakingMedicinesBacktotheFuturev2-1.mp4?rlkey=pinomhdkwxxmy70boxfg545s9&st=4x4urv40&dl=0
Vinay, Sadly, perhaps not...