1 1
winsor

EUA

Recommended Posts

Much of the coverage of COVID-19 therapies borders on the bizarre.  For example, if one publishes on many of the popular social media platforms data from reputable sources suggesting that an existing medication may be effective, it is taken down immediately and the source is likely to be either banned or demonetized.

Also, one would think that serious funds would be applied to identifying existing approved treatments that would limit the damage of the pandemic, but I can find no trace of a serious effort to do so.  An example of counterproductive research is the  University of Oxford's Recovery trial, which could easily have been the result of intentional for the worst possible outcome. 

Given what was known at the time regarding replication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, there was no expectation that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) would be effective more than a week after onset of symptoms or in the absence of supplemental Zinc.  

My sister had Lupus and took 200 mg of HCQ daily for years, and it is an over the counter medication in locales where Malaria is endemic.  A quick check shows that therapeutic doses are limited to 400 mg a day, and anything over 800 mg on the first day begins to show toxicity.

The Recovery trial was limited to patients with severe symptoms, well after HCQ might be effective, did not include Zinc, and used 2,400 mg/day - well into the toxic range.  If I was to design a study of how to use HCQ to worsen the survival rate of severely ill patients,  I could hardly do better than did Oxford.

At first glance it appears to make no sense why the ONLY treatment for COVID-19 is vaccine.  However, given the fact that any of the vaccines are only available under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), a line of reasoning is possible.

FDA criteria include the requirement that "there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives" (copied and pasted from the FDA website).  Since I manufacture a last ditch therapy under EUA (you don't want to need it), I have a passing familiarity with the EUA process.

Thus, if other "adequate, approved, and available alternatives" were established, the EUA for vaccines goes away.  Since we have bet the ranch on the use of unapproved vaccines, finding anything else that works is counterproductive, so the model fits.

I am more comfortable with Hanlon's Razor than with conspiracy theories per se, but the results are the same.

When people who refer to 'science' do so with hand waving in lieu of data, saying that this, that or the other thing has been 'discredited,' my response is fine, let's see your data.  That generally yields crickets.

Even understanding that the lipid nanoparticles used for delivery of the MRNA vaccine tend to migrate instead of remaining at the site of injection as intended, I have been vaccinated.  Given that data regarding the various vaccines has reached a Medieval level of access and reliability, I am more than hesitant to have my kid get it.  We're banking on long term effects to avoid infection, so I am not confident that long term side-effects are impossible.  I went to school with people whose mothers were given Thalidomide while pregnant, so I'm impressed by how badly highly educated researchers can get it wrong.

The Eastern Virginia Medical School did a great job of gleaning every bit of data available regarding COVID-19 treatment around the world.  The last time they published their treatment protocol they had over references to over 360 papers to support their approach.

EVMS has handed off their work to the Front Line COVID Critical Care Alliance, which does not append the references to their protocols, more's the pity.

Their website is here:  https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/

If I can find a link to the various studies, I will post it.  The papers are all technical, but interesting.

Although I have been vaccinated, I still do everything I can to avoid being infected and infecting others.  Everything one can do to load the dice in their favor is advised.

 

Good luck,

Winsor

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, winsor said:

At first glance it appears to make no sense why the ONLY treatment for COVID-19 is vaccine.  However, given the fact that any of the vaccines are only available under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), a line of reasoning is possible.

FDA criteria include the requirement that "there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives" (copied and pasted from the FDA website).  Since I manufacture a last ditch therapy under EUA (you don't want to need it), I have a passing familiarity with the EUA process.

Thus, if other "adequate, approved, and available alternatives" were established, the EUA for vaccines goes away.  Since we have bet the ranch on the use of unapproved vaccines, finding anything else that works is counterproductive, so the model fits.

Except that Remdesivir, dexamethazone and monoclonal antibody therapy work for COVID-19 as well, and are considered valid treatments for severe cases of the disease.

So that particular conspiracy theory has a few holes in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, billvon said:

Except that Remdesivir, dexamethazone and monoclonal antibody therapy work for COVID-19 as well, and are considered valid treatments for severe cases of the disease.

So that particular conspiracy theory has a few holes in it.

Remdesivir is almost 2x as effective as a placebo.  There is a significant difference between a valid treatment for severe cases of the disease (as noted, I manufacture one of them) and an effective prophylaxis.  If you have a severe case of the disease, or even show positive for exposure, the vaccine does nada.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, winsor said:

Remdesivir is almost 2x as effective as a placebo.

Right.  Which is considerably more effective than hydroxychloroquine has been demonstrated to be.

And while certainly not a magic bullet, it is commonly used in treatment of severe cases, and even some less urgent cases.  Recall that Trump was treated with all three, even though he claimed the disease was not severe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billvon said:

Right.  Which is considerably more effective than hydroxychloroquine has been demonstrated to be.

And while certainly not a magic bullet, it is commonly used in treatment of severe cases, and even some less urgent cases.  Recall that Trump was treated with all three, even though he claimed the disease was not severe. 

You're right, at least the same extent as usual.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/06/09/hydroxychloroquine-study-n2590700

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, winsor said:

If I can find a link to the various studies, I will post it.  The papers are all technical, but interesting.

Well that link you posted is pushing for ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug, for covid-19.

It's pretty controversial: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns

The concentrations that act against the virus in vitro are much higher than anyone's ever had in their blood, and the usual concentrations have had little or no effect on outcome.

4 minutes ago, winsor said:

The tweet the article refers to has been deleted. There is no reference to the study, no links at all.

1 hour ago, winsor said:

(as noted, I manufacture one of them)

Great, so you're part of the conspiracy? /s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, winsor said:

Some things you may not have noticed when perusing this popular press article:

The study was not for hydroxychloroquine, but rather hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin combined.  Azithromycin is an antibiotic which has some antiviral properties, which is unusual for an antibiotic.  The authors conclude that "it is likely AZM does contribute significantly to this increase in survival rate."  Given that AZM is known to be effective against COVID-19, and no other study has shown HCQ to be effective - this study does not demonstrate that HCQ is effective against COVID-19.

In addition, this was not in any way a treatment for most people who have COVID-19.  It was a study only on people on ventilators, and does not apply to others.   The authors mention that "these data do not yet apply to hospitalized patients not on IMV."  (IMV is mechanical ventilation.)

You complain above that another study of HCQ "used 2,400 mg/day - well into the toxic range.  If I was to design a study of how to use HCQ to worsen the survival rate of severely ill patients,  I could hardly do better than did Oxford."  (This was for the first day of the Oxford study; after the first day doses were much lower.)  I am not sure why you think 2.4 grams a day is a poor choice due to toxicity.  But in any case this study used more than 3 grams HCQ for 25% of the patients, making this, by your definition, an even more flawed study.

If you are indeed working on COVID-19 treatments, I hope you apply more rigor than this to your studies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billvon said:

Some things you may not have noticed when perusing this popular press article:

The study was not for hydroxychloroquine, but rather hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin combined.  Azithromycin is an antibiotic which has some antiviral properties, which is unusual for an antibiotic.  The authors conclude that "it is likely AZM does contribute significantly to this increase in survival rate."  Given that AZM is known to be effective against COVID-19, and no other study has shown HCQ to be effective - this study does not demonstrate that HCQ is effective against COVID-19.

In addition, this was not in any way a treatment for most people who have COVID-19.  It was a study only on people on ventilators, and does not apply to others.   The authors mention that "these data do not yet apply to hospitalized patients not on IMV."  (IMV is mechanical ventilation.)

You complain above that another study of HCQ "used 2,400 mg/day - well into the toxic range.  If I was to design a study of how to use HCQ to worsen the survival rate of severely ill patients,  I could hardly do better than did Oxford."  (This was for the first day of the Oxford study; after the first day doses were much lower.)  I am not sure why you think 2.4 grams a day is a poor choice due to toxicity.  But in any case this study used more than 3 grams HCQ for 25% of the patients, m theaking this, by your definition, an even more flawed study.

If you are indeed working on COVID-19 treatments, I hope you apply more rigor than this to your studies.

You're right, 3 grams a day is off the charts, and there are better choices late in the game.  I grabbed the wrong article, but read this one first:

https://www.palmerfoundation.com.au/journal-of-medicine-says-hcq-zinc-reduces-covid-deaths/

This article seems to address the mechanism whereby HCQ is effective in conjunction with Zinc, as well as the politics behind the censorship of anything HCQ related.

I know the orange man touted HCQ, and all too many people would rather die than agree with him.  All things being equal I hope something occurs that takes him out of the equation (he enters a monastery or prison or whatever), but do not accept or reject anything just because he said it.  Come to think of it, about the only time I hear anything from him is when he is quoted.

If I can come up with a printout of the references that EVMS published I will post them.  They did a pretty good job of coming up with worthwhile research.

 

Live long and prosper,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, winsor said:

all too many people would rather die than agree with him.

Please provide proof of this.

On the contrary, some of the orange man's followers would rather die than believe covid was real, and they did so:

Quote

Covid nurse says some dying patients are still refusing to believe virus is real: ‘This can’t be happening’
US has recorded more than 248,000 deaths due to the coronavirus outbreak, which has been repeatedly downplayed by President Trump

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, winsor said:

I know the orange man touted HCQ, and all too many people would rather die than agree with him. 

That's probably true.  Similarly, there are all too many people who would rather die than see him proved wrong.  Hence my reliance on peer-reviewed studies rather than FOX News or CNN articles.

Edited to add - I would point out that no one has proven that HCQ does NOT work against COVID-19.  It may someday be shown to provide some (likely minor) protection against SARS-CoV-2.  But as of now, after several studies on the topic, there is no evidence it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, winsor said:

I know the orange man touted HCQ, and all too many people would rather die than agree with him. 

i can't stand the son of a bitch and hope he rots, whether in prison or in the ground is irrelevant.  having said that, he had a few good ideas i have to credit him with.  one is the idea that ca can stop their forest fires by sweeping the forest.  i recall that the yellowstone area natives used to do not exactly this, but managed the area well by clearing brush and debris, keeping it not only less likely to be devastated by fire, but looking nicer also.  not sure if that is a myth on the reason we relocated them after stealing their land and designating a national forest there, but it sounds like something the us would do.  think about how much it would cost to clear a forested area compared to the cost of losing that area plus 10 times that additionally and it may just be better.  controlled burns used to be a thing and are proven to work as well.  either of these two options could save millions or more annually along with the lives that go with the fires.

he also made it a felony for animal abuse if i recall.   i think there were some other things as well, but they escape me now.

Edited by sfzombie13
had an extra comma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This:

https://anestesiologia.blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-EVMS-COVID-19-Management-Protocol.pdf

is the pdf file for EVMS' COVID protocol.

The 386 references they cite are not hyperlinks, but rather a few can be tracked down, and they are interesting.  The references to work that does not show up on a Google search of the subject are hardly comprehensive.

The point here is that there is a lot more going on besides vaccination.

What concerns me is the level of censorship afoot.  If someone wants to publish a work that does not stand up to scrutiny, it seems to be a lot less damaging to subject the thesis to scrutiny than it is to censor the work outright.

I suppose Godwin's law applies if I suggest that Kristallnacht was 'largely peaceful' and that burning books in the Bebelplatz was just a harmless bit of venting by students.  I still am concerned by censorship, which is the hallmark of totalitarian ideologies.

Anything on Facebook, YouTube or other popular social media that points out less than optimal features of vaccination tends to disappear in short order, regardless of the credibility of the source.

A logical 'proof' generally involves failing to disprove the theorem under consideration rather than denigrating the attempt to disprove it.  Scientific theories that are put forth with religious fervor are all the more suspect - when someone says "The Science is SETTLED!," the only thing they achieve is to convince me that they have a poor understanding of the scientific process.

From such data as I can obtain, it makes sense to get vaccinated, though I'd avoid the Astra-Zenica and J&J products  as a matter of course. 

Given studies of unexpected migration of lipid nanoparticles, I'd want more reliable data before giving the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines to a kid.  Balancing long-term immunity against long term side effects is why we conduct clinical trials - which have been bypassed for these vaccines.

Since autopsies of COVID-19 fatalities show vitamin D deficiency across the board, 4,000 IU a day of D3 can't hurt. 

Zinc (no more than 50 mg/day) with an appropriate ionophore such as Quercetin seems to improve the odds.

Ascorbic acid (1,000 mg/day of Vitamin C) appears related to better resistance to SARS-CoV-2 infection as well.

There are other supplements associated with an improved outcome, but this is a start.

As with most viruses, keeping the inoculum low improves one's odds.

Life is by its very nature a stochastic process (a crapshoot).  Thus, loading the dice in one's favor to the extent possible improves the odds and is strongly advised.

Though I hear various sources saying 'let them die' with regard to anti-vaxers or others with whom they disagree, I do not wish this disease on anyone.  It is a bad bug, and the damage inflicted by microthrombi is of the permanent sort, where even if you 'get better' your life trajectory has been permanently altered for the worse.

I don't ask that anyone 'believe' me, but that they do their homework and do everything in their power to avoid getting sick in the first place - even those who are generally mad at me.

 

Good luck,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, winsor said:

This:

https://anestesiologia.blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-EVMS-COVID-19-Management-Protocol.pdf

is the pdf file for EVMS' COVID protocol.

The 386 references they cite are not hyperlinks, but rather a few can be tracked down, and they are interesting.  The references to work that does not show up on a Google search of the subject are hardly comprehensive.

The point here is that there is a lot more going on besides vaccination.

What concerns me is the level of censorship afoot.  If someone wants to publish a work that does not stand up to scrutiny, it seems to be a lot less damaging to subject the thesis to scrutiny than it is to censor the work outright.

I suppose Godwin's law applies if I suggest that Kristallnacht was 'largely peaceful' and that burning books in the Bebelplatz was just a harmless bit of venting by students.  I still am concerned by censorship, which is the hallmark of totalitarian ideologies.

Anything on Facebook, YouTube or other popular social media that points out less than optimal features of vaccination tends to disappear in short order, regardless of the credibility of the source.

A logical 'proof' generally involves failing to disprove the theorem under consideration rather than denigrating the attempt to disprove it.  Scientific theories that are put forth with religious fervor are all the more suspect - when someone says "The Science is SETTLED!," the only thing they achieve is to convince me that they have a poor understanding of the scientific process.

From such data as I can obtain, it makes sense to get vaccinated, though I'd avoid the Astra-Zenica and J&J products  as a matter of course. 

Given studies of unexpected migration of lipid nanoparticles, I'd want more reliable data before giving the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines to a kid.  Balancing long-term immunity against long term side effects is why we conduct clinical trials - which have been bypassed for these vaccines.

Since autopsies of COVID-19 fatalities show vitamin D deficiency across the board, 4,000 IU a day of D3 can't hurt. 

Zinc (no more than 50 mg/day) with an appropriate ionophore such as Quercetin seems to improve the odds.

Ascorbic acid (1,000 mg/day of Vitamin C) appears related to better resistance to SARS-CoV-2 infection as well.

There are other supplements associated with an improved outcome, but this is a start.

As with most viruses, keeping the inoculum low improves one's odds.

Life is by its very nature a stochastic process (a crapshoot).  Thus, loading the dice in one's favor to the extent possible improves the odds and is strongly advised.

Though I hear various sources saying 'let them die' with regard to anti-vaxers or others with whom they disagree, I do not wish this disease on anyone.  It is a bad bug, and the damage inflicted by microthrombi is of the permanent sort, where even if you 'get better' your life trajectory has been permanently altered for the worse.

I don't ask that anyone 'believe' me, but that they do their homework and do everything in their power to avoid getting sick in the first place - even those who are generally mad at me.

 

Good luck,

Winsor

You have an unparalleled ability to post utter horseshit, sprinkled with a few big words. The fuck you talking about when you say clinical trials were bypassed for the COVID vaccines?!?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, lippy said:

You have an unparalleled ability to post utter horseshit, sprinkled with a few big words. The fuck you talking about when you say clinical trials were bypassed for the COVID vaccines?!?!?

Your most eloquent criticism has been noted and considered for its merits.

Regarding clinical trials as a function of the EUA process. do your homework and get back to me.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, winsor said:

What concerns me is the level of censorship afoot.  If someone wants to publish a work that does not stand up to scrutiny, it seems to be a lot less damaging to subject the thesis to scrutiny than it is to censor the work outright.

?? Given that you just posted links to several studies that are freely available - that statement does not jibe with what you have posted.

Quote

I still am concerned by censorship, which is the hallmark of totalitarian ideologies.

I am too.  Fortunately that is not what is happening.

Quote

Anything on Facebook, YouTube or other popular social media that points out less than optimal features of vaccination tends to disappear in short order, regardless of the credibility of the source.

Yes, private message boards/services have rules.  The owners have the freedom to decide what material to host on them.

If someone comes here and says "fuck you, you fuckity fuck, and Trump rules" his post would be deleted by either Wendy or myself, since we have a rule against personal attacks.  He would then, of course, claim "You CENSORED me because you can't handle the TRUTH that TRUMP RULES!  You are like Hitler!  You are afraid of me because I speak TRUTH to POWER!"

I imagine that such posts make people like that feel better; indeed, often they make such posts so they can then claim "CENSORSHIP!"  Of course, those arguments are somewhat less than compelling.

(Or I am really just like Hitler; take your choice.)

Quote

Given studies of unexpected migration of lipid nanoparticles, I'd want more reliable data before giving the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines to a kid.

They've been in use since 2018, and been in development since 1985 or so.  So we do have a fair amount of data on them.

Quote

 

Since autopsies of COVID-19 fatalities show vitamin D deficiency across the board, 4,000 IU a day of D3 can't hurt. 

Zinc (no more than 50 mg/day) with an appropriate ionophore such as Quercetin seems to improve the odds.

Ascorbic acid (1,000 mg/day of Vitamin C) appears related to better resistance to SARS-CoV-2 infection as well.

 

Sure.  And diet and exercise are always good ideas - as is quitting smoking and avoiding excesses of alcohol or drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, billvon said:

?? Given that you just posted links to several studies that are freely available - that statement does not jibe with what you have posted.

I am too.  Fortunately that is not what is happening.

Yes, private message boards/services have rules.  The owners have the freedom to decide what material to host on them.

If someone comes here and says "fuck you, you fuckity fuck, and Trump rules" his post would be deleted by either Wendy or myself, since we have a rule against personal attacks.  He would then, of course, claim "You CENSORED me because you can't handle the TRUTH that TRUMP RULES!  You are like Hitler!  You are afraid of me because I speak TRUTH to POWER!"

I imagine that such posts make people like that feel better; indeed, often they make such posts so they can then claim "CENSORSHIP!"  Of course, those arguments are somewhat less than compelling.

(Or I am really just like Hitler; take your choice.)

They've been in use since 2018, and been in development since 1985 or so.  So we do have a fair amount of data on them.

Sure.  And diet and exercise are always good ideas - as is quitting smoking and avoiding excesses of alcohol or drugs.

I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that we are on such different wavelengths, and I can't get too hung up because the level of communication is thus zero.  My guess is that we are doomed to talk past each other.

I have witnessed rather a few videos and posts that made no unfounded accusations and simply referenced research that was not in accordance with the prevailing orthodoxy disappear.  These were not antivax or whatever, and did not call anyone names or recommend anything dangerous or ill considered, but they were swept up in the ban.

Yes, I know Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. are private companies, and understand that your censorship is always justified and noble, but I am referring to the prevailing tendency to tune out or drown out anything that calls into question a narrative that differs from the current liturgy.

I know there are people who miss the DDR and the USSR and the like, but when I was there my personal impression was "this really blows."  That doesn't make them wrong and me right - or that 'capitalism' is good, for that matter, it's just my take.

I stand by my observation that Orwell was an optimist.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

According to Aldous Huxley, "The perfect dictatorship would have the appearance of a democracy, but would basically be a prison without walls in which the prisoners would not even dream of escaping. It would essentially be a system of slavery where, through consumption and entertainment, the slaves would love their servitudes."

Thus the absence of a 'Hitler' figure is no assurance of anything resembling an egalitarian system.

My contention that nobody sees themselves as evil is in keeping with the observation that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.'

Back to the EUA, having committed to vaccines 100%, making mention of any potential alternate has resulted in the source of the claim disappearing.  Exactly why I don't know, but I have watched it in practice since the early days of the pandemic.

Oh, I suppose it's for the best...

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, winsor said:

I have witnessed rather a few videos and posts that made no unfounded accusations and simply referenced research that was not in accordance with the prevailing orthodoxy disappear.  These were not antivax or whatever, and did not call anyone names or recommend anything dangerous or ill considered, but they were swept up in the ban.

I have too.  And if you have been watching DZ.com very much, you have also seen posts that are merely advertising a wonderful new business opportunity, or explaining how an incident was all the fault of a greedy, evil DZO disappear.  One might conclude that they were deleted for being against the rules here at DZ.com - or one might conclude that the moderation staff is on the payroll of said evil DZO.  (And yes, such accusations have been made.)  Which side you gravitate towards is up to you.

Quote

Yes, I know Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. are private companies, and understand that your censorship is always justified and noble, but I am referring to the prevailing tendency to tune out or drown out anything that calls into question a narrative that differs from the current liturgy.

There is of course a tendency toward homophily - the desire to support anything that is similar to your appearance/beliefs/understanding.  That results in a somewhat common message.  There is also the desire to suggest to the person screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theater that perhaps they should wait until after the movie to express their First Amendment protected opinion.

But even beyond those two things, given that I have seen all the posts you have claimed have been censored - again, there might be something awry with your logic.  See an example below.

silenced.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, billvon said:

I have too.  And if you have been watching DZ.com very much, you have also seen posts that are merely advertising a wonderful new business opportunity, or explaining how an incident was all the fault of a greedy, evil DZO disappear.  One might conclude that they were deleted for being against the rules here at DZ.com - or one might conclude that the moderation staff is on the payroll of said evil DZO.  (And yes, such accusations have been made.)  Which side you gravitate towards is up to you.

There is of course a tendency toward homophily - the desire to support anything that is similar to your appearance/beliefs/understanding.  That results in a somewhat common message.  There is also the desire to suggest to the person screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theater that perhaps they should wait until after the movie to express their First Amendment protected opinion.

But even beyond those two things, given that I have seen all the posts you have claimed have been censored - again, there might be something awry with your logic.  See an example below.

silenced.jpg

I have no idea what you think you're talking about.

I wasn't referring to this website at all, and, if it is, in fact, all about you, that's news to me.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, winsor said:

Regarding clinical trials as a function of the EUA process. do your homework and get back to me.

Maybe I'm missing something here:

- Clinical trials were performed on the vaccines.  

- EUA's were issued for certain vaccines based on them being demonstrated safe and effective during clinical trials.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lippy said:

Maybe I'm missing something here:

- Clinical trials were performed on the vaccines.  

- EUA's were issued for certain vaccines based on them being demonstrated safe and effective during clinical trials.

In general, clinical trials are exhaustive, take years and cost an insane amount of money.

For an EUA the process is massively truncated.  Safety concerns crop up all too frequently thereafter, and it is not unusual for the EUA to be yanked when it turns out it is not statistically effective.

There is no way the long term effects of the vaccine could be evaluated, given its existence can be conveniently measured in minutes.

I've worked on the approval of rather a few pharmaceuticals that worked like magic, but turned out to have effects that weren't optimal during clinical trials.

I got the Pfizer vaccine, but expect that our picture of its effects will be different when it's been around as long as it would have taken to get through the normal approval process.

FWIW, our EUA is based on the full EU  approval process and years of safe and effective use.  We also recommend that you do everything you can not to get sick enough to need us.  With COVID-19, we can keep you undead rather than being you back to health.  It's a bad bug.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1