"I couldn't get two minutes into their chatter before I fled to google."
I did like, "Your confirmation bias is not my pronlem." --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sat, May 8, 2021, 10:45 AM Roger Critchlow <[email protected]> wrote: > Sirry, I couldn't get two minutes into their chatter before I fled to > google. > > https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243.pdf is a Nature Review > article on mRNA vaccines from 2018, so a snapshot of a technology prior to > covid-19. > > The mRNAs are synthesized in vitro using phage RNA polymerase, > ribonucleotides, and template DNA, products purified using high performance > liquid chromatography or something similar to remove double stranded RNA, > and packaged into lipid balls. The Moderna specifies modified nucleosides, > meaning not the common RNA bases, which reduces immune response to the RNA > itself. The Pfizer-BioNTech didn't specify. > > (Apparently there are mRNA treatments which package viral RNA amplifier > enzymes on the mRNA, not relevant to these vaccines, though.) > > Note that "2 days to vaccine" is comparing the final step in vaccine > manufacture. There are months or years of work before that step to develop > the virology, molecular biology, immunology, mRNA and protein engineering > to the point where you have a template DNA for any vaccine. And some of > those precursor steps will involve filtering out mRNAs that don't > transcribe well and protein fragments that don't fold well or fail to have > the desired antigenicity, steps which might not be necessary if you were > developing a vaccine with another technology. > > -- rec -- > > > On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 9:08 AM Pieter Steenekamp < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> There is a story about a frog and a scorpion trapped on an island that's >> going to explode or something and they both will die unless they get off >> the island. The frog got ready to swim to safety and the scorpion asked him >> for a lift. After the scorpion promised that he's not going to kill the >> frog, the frog conceded to give him a lift. Half way towards safety the >> scorpion stung the frog and both were about to die. Just before he died the >> frog asked the scorpion why he did that. His answer was, it's in my nature >> to kill frogs. >> >> Although I promised not to stir, it's in my nature to do so, so here we >> go again. I know many of you are probably against the Intellectual Dark Web >> (IDW), so a reference to a card carrying member Bret Weinstein is probably >> stirring? >> >> My knowledge of biology is very poor, but I found the discussion by Bret >> Weinstain and his wife Heather Heying on mRNA vaccination technology very >> informing for a lay person like me: >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifPjaVL_1yw&t=3s >> >> If you can for a moment ignore their political views and listen to their >> explanation of mRNA you might just find it very informative. >> >> >> >> On Sat, 8 May 2021 at 12:25, David Eric Smith <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Pieter, >>> >>> Yes, as I also said in the earlier post. From what we can tell so far, >>> these mRNA/lipid vaccines look like a technology that really matters. >>> >>> Earlier in 2020, I wasn’t paying close attention to the technology >>> (attention in other areas, and I didn’t know that there was a big >>> technology deal in the offing). A colleague who works in academic/research >>> partnerships, and is a close associate of my boss at the time (a microbial >>> molecular biologist), was emphasizing that this is a big deal. That was >>> what got me to start paying attention. >>> >>> I believe the following thing is correct to say, but it is outside my >>> daily work (though bread and butter for a lab I work in, so I should know >>> it), and I could be wrong: I think custom RNA production these days is >>> done by chemical assembly, and doesn’t require a living cell for >>> manufacture (which always used to be the case). If that is correct, then >>> _all_ components of the new vaccine are chemical. One of the slowest and >>> hardest to scale of bio-based vaccines is the gene editing and growth of >>> the cells or viruses or whatever. To eliminate that step and move to an >>> all-chemical platform changes both the cost and the timescale of >>> production. >>> >>> I believe that is also why monoclonal antibodies are slow and >>> expensive. They are proteins, and we have no other ways to manufacture >>> proteins at scale. In labs, custom RNAs are a commodity item; proteins are >>> still expensive. >>> >>> Two weeks ago, I was in a conversation with two younger colleagues who >>> work full-time in cancer biology, where the problem is that even if a known >>> mutation is the source of the problem, there is no direct way to eliminate >>> the cells with that mutation; you always end up doing something at the >>> phenotype level that misses some of what you are after and causes a lot of >>> collateral damage. I was asking them whether there were important >>> techniques in view for using CRISPR on these delivery vehicles to get >>> directly at the relevant mutations. Their opinions is, not anywhere close >>> anytime soon, because there are too many other difficulties that just >>> having a delivery system will not address. But given the nature of >>> technology and technologists, I feel certain those pursuing this area are >>> looking at it as a general-purpose platform, and not one defined by its >>> introductory role in vaccines. >>> >>> I don’t have a context-free desire either to pursue or to avoid any of >>> this, but I would like to be able to understand what exists and what is >>> possible, not only decades after it has become common. >>> >>> We’ll see what happens. >>> >>> Take care, >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 8, 2021, at 6:56 PM, Pieter Steenekamp < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Eric, >>> >>> Thanks very much for this reply, I really appreciate it. >>> >>> To be honest, I admit I was probably a bit *naughty* in referencing >>> Reason in my comment about the mRNA technology. I could just as well have >>> summarised the technology and my enthusiasm for the potential benefit for >>> humanity in having this to fight viruses in future, without referencing >>> Reason. If my son in law was part of the discussion he would have done what >>> he often does when I do something like this - he would have handed me a >>> spoon, indicating that I'm just stirring. >>> >>> To emphasise the key point I wanted to make, I'm quoting your >>> description of mRNA vaccinations: >>> " *they seem likely be even safer with fewer side effects than viral >>> vectors, as well as better for boosters, faster roll-out, greater >>> mass-production scale, etc.*" >>> >>> So, on my original key point you and I seem to be in some sort of >>> agreement. >>> >>> (Note to self: be more careful to use the spoon in future) >>> >>> Pieter >>> >>> On Sat, 8 May 2021 at 09:50, David Eric Smith <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Pieter, hi and thank you, >>>> >>>> Yes, very good. >>>> >>>> Let me respond to your root post here, in parallel with whatever other >>>> branches may have grown from it. I want to note that the points in Glen’s >>>> first reply to the same post speak well for the things that animate me, and >>>> are better worded than mine. So I won’t recap them, but want to >>>> acknowledge and share endorsement of them. >>>> >>>> On May 7, 2021, at 9:35 PM, Pieter Steenekamp < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> So please help me, I don't understand how you get from, I quote from >>>> the transcript (my underlining) : >>>> *"Safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines were produced far faster than >>>> any expert expected. Yet almost all of the time that it took to bring the >>>> vaccines to market was due to safety testing and other governmental >>>> mandates that could have been sped up without endangering anyone. By >>>> January 13, 2020—only two days after the Chinese researchers shared the >>>> genetic sequence of the COVID-19 virus and before most Americans had heard >>>> of the disease—the biotech company Moderna had devised the formula for its >>>> vaccine. BioNTech launched its COVID-19 vaccine program in January and had >>>> partnered with Pfizer to manufacture it by mid-March of last year. The >>>> first volunteer was injected with Moderna's vaccine on March 16, 2020, yet >>>> it was only approved by the FDA last December 17th, a week after Pfizer's >>>> vaccine met the agency's approval. Had the agency been faster off the mark >>>> and used human-challenge trials and other innovative testing techniques, >>>> the vaccines could have been brought to market months earlier with no >>>> compromise in safety. That would have conceivably saved hundreds of >>>> thousands of lives globally*.*"* >>>> >>>> to your comment? I quote from your email (my underlining): >>>> >>>> *But of course the article puts up the mRNA vaccines as evidence of >>>> how, because the agencies got out of the way (is implied), BioNTech and >>>> Moderna had vaccines in a few days. That is deliberate BS, and I doubt the >>>> writer is such an idiot that he doesn’t know it. * >>>> >>>> >>>> So very good. I took hours thisAM writing a bunch of awful stuff, >>>> feeling stupider and stupider for having written a screed instead of a good >>>> argument yesterday, and realized I have to re-examine what I am responding >>>> to. >>>> >>>> I think my objection is to a salience structure of the article that I >>>> think grossly miss-apportions credit and fault, in a way that is not only >>>> unfair but that supports an anti-public and anti-institutional point of >>>> view that is harmful in many cases where it succeeds. So let me list for >>>> you what I experience as the salience structure, and what I would replace >>>> it with that I think would be more fair and also a better foundation for >>>> decisions. I am not complaining about any of Gillespie’s facts. Those he >>>> quotes that I know are consistent with what I understand from other >>>> sources, and I don’t doubt the veracity of those I didn’t know in detail. >>>> >>>> So here’s what I read in the paragraph you quote above: >>>> >>>> *. Natural timescales for production, accomplished by Companies, were >>>> very fast. >>>> **. What Government provided was a vastly longer and unnecessary gap, >>>> which didn’t have a good reason to exist. >>>> (Then, to adduce evidence) >>>> 1. Companies invented formula for vaccines (only the mRNA ones >>>> mentioned): pertinent timescale was 2 days. >>>> 2. Company partnered with other Company for production, Company >>>> produced a first human-injectable product; pertinent timescale was a bit >>>> under 2 months. >>>> 3. Government, Regulator, with Mandates, stepped in and 9 months were >>>> spent needlessly >>>> 4. Because of those 9 lost months (or some unspecified subset of them), >>>> some hundreds of thousands of people died needlessly. >>>> >>>> Here’s how I would have written a salience analysis for the first part >>>> — I will come back a bit later to the last two points, both their substance >>>> and how Gillespie renders them. >>>> >>>> -2. Government funds mRNA uptake and expression research, but just >>>> barely and precariously. Academic labs keep getting shut down, and their >>>> directors go to Companies, where that work is not in the portfolio. >>>> Somehow, remarkably, it does get pushed through to a working system; the >>>> outcome could easily have been quite different; pertinent timescale: 30 >>>> years, during which much of the cost and all of the long-horizon risk is >>>> carried in the public sector. (Could be, however, that Company grants do >>>> contribute at places, and perhaps fill in key steps that happen to fall on >>>> the timelines they can support. If so, note it.) >>>> -1. Government (Obama admin) seeds startup in thermostable lipid >>>> delivery systems for mRNA; pertinent timescale is 5-10 years. (I don’t >>>> know BioNTech’s history or who funded it, if it was Company funded as a >>>> venture, that matters and should be noted. If public, then that.) There >>>> are no products in either country, because the disease targets turn out to >>>> have either low enough severity and sales potential, or small enough >>>> coverage that it requires too-large clinical trials to get statistics, for >>>> any Company to be willing to foot that bill for an unproven technology. >>>> 0. Technology sits around and skowly gets more mature, but has no >>>> clinical trial testing history beyond basic safety of the delivery system. >>>> 1. mRNA vaccine Companies are finally able to pull the trigger on the >>>> gun that has been sitting loaded for years, and provide a formula in a >>>> couple of days. EXCELLENT — CREDIT TO ALL INVOLVED. Standard >>>> technologies, like adenovirus technologies (I think not mentioned in this >>>> article), were already ready and are fairly quick, though less so because >>>> of the inherent limits of the technology. STILL EXCELLENT. >>>> 2. Companies partnered with other Companies for production (GREAT — >>>> JUST WHAT THEY ARE SET UP TO DO). Some important Government regulatory >>>> protocols that normally are serialized get parallelized because of the >>>> singular circumstances. Potential testing timeline is shortened from >>>> typical 3-5 years to potentially less than 1 year if we get lucky. (We >>>> should come back to why they are normally serial, and whether even in light >>>> of what we have learned, they would be reset that way anyway because it >>>> costs less and is acceptable for many routine procedures. If not, and we >>>> want to go parallel, then that’s a great prod to innovation prompted by >>>> this pandemic.). In any case, first human clinical trial; pertinent >>>> timescale: a bit less than 2 months. >>>> ... >>>> etc. >>>> >>>> So, the way I responded yesterday, which you quote, is both needlessly >>>> rude and also unclear; thank you for pushing back. Let me be careful in >>>> the next, and reply to your exact words: >>>> >>>> Do I miss something? I don't read in the transcript that they said or >>>> implied that BioNTech and Moderna had vaccines in a few days? >>>> >>>> >>>> I wasn’t attributing that as a Gillespie claim; I was taking that as a >>>> factually roughly-correct description of what really happened. It is >>>> probably right that the “design of the formula” isn’t the same as “having >>>> the first vaccines”. However, RNA manufacturing is an off-the-shelf >>>> technology, which both these companies almost-certainly have in-house and >>>> don’t even need to go across town to get. Since the lipid delivery >>>> platforms are their product, the transition from sequence design to first >>>> injectable droplets was probably very fast; an assembly of components >>>> already on hand in their own shop. If they do get their RNA from a >>>> foundry, for a high-priority project they could probably get it made in a >>>> day, across town or via airmail. It probably took a bit longer to get >>>> enough production to run a clinical trial — that could have been weeks or >>>> even a month or more — but that is production scale-up and consistency >>>> checking, all exacting but established Pharma technical stuff. >>>> >>>> Maybe I'm such an idiot that I don't see it? >>>> >>>> >>>> What I was saying here was the I don’t think Gillespie is at all an >>>> idiot. Therefore I expect he understands well that the rapid delivery of >>>> the first mRNA vaccines (specifically) was putting the cherry on top of a >>>> sundae that had been a long time in the making, with the biggest foundation >>>> being public, and essential but timescale- and risk-limited roles for >>>> companies in partnership. My objection was the salience one above, putting >>>> up short timescales for that turnaround as if they were the natural >>>> timescales of the process, mentioning them only in association with >>>> Companies, which then only Big Regulatory Government with its Mandates came >>>> in and broke down. >>>> >>>> If he had talked _only_ about the adenovirus vaccines, already >>>> established in company production lines, rolled out unusually quickly (to >>>> their credit, in just the way he says generally), and with a history of >>>> clinical trial evaluation of essentially the same technology, then his >>>> discussion of regulatory roles would have indeed focused on the only >>>> remaining discretionary variable in affecting the time of the public >>>> availability. Everything else was more or less constrained. Only >>>> mentioning the adeno vaccines would have been a lot less compelling >>>> rhetorically, though, since J&J is a minor player in the US, Astra not yet >>>> at all (in the US, unless it has been approved and I haven’t kept up), both >>>> are slightly less-flashy by the efficacy numbers, may have more limited >>>> scope for use in boosters if there is immune response against the viral >>>> vectors that disables the delivery system in second doses before it can >>>> deposits its payload, and also have rare inflammatory side-effects that >>>> have been enough to give them some negative PR (though do not change the >>>> fact that they are excellent vaccines). >>>> >>>> Yet I think the only companies he mentions are the mRNA ones, for which >>>> the turnaround timescales are shortest and most impressive, and seem by >>>> comparison to make the Government Regulatory timescale look most >>>> blameworthy. That is what I felt is disingenuous. If you are going to use >>>> those as the standard for government responsiveness, why not mention that >>>> the most impressive timescale is that they exist at all, and which actor >>>> ultimately made the difference between now and never? >>>> >>>> >>>> But let me let that part go. You may still find my objection unjust as >>>> well as inept. >>>> >>>> >>>> I do want to respond to the points 3 and 4 above, though, because they >>>> are part of a tone that undoubtedly was what I was ranting against. The >>>> specific sentences are: >>>> "Had the agency been faster off the mark and used human-challenge >>>> trials and other innovative testing techniques, the vaccines could have >>>> been brought to market months earlier with no compromise in safety. That >>>> would have conceivably saved hundreds of thousands of lives globally” >>>> >>>> I want to flag where I think this is specifically manipulative, and >>>> suggest what I think would be a more correct and productive framing. >>>> >>>> Those two sentences are an assertion about constraint and causation, >>>> meaning that removal of a constraint would have caused a better outcome. Of >>>> course, they are not literally an “assertion", since everything is framed >>>> in conjectures or conditionals. That’s how lawyers and debaters talk. But >>>> with a clear intent to have the reader conclude what they only express as >>>> conditional. >>>> >>>> Let me give an ad absurdum for why I say it is a bogus assertion of >>>> causation. Not that the ad absurdum is a great literal model of the >>>> Gillespie language, but so I can be unambiguous about the structure of the >>>> argument I want to flag. Here: >>>> 1. This pig doesn’t have feathers. >>>> 2. Feathers have all these important functional roles in flight. >>>> 3. If this pig had features, he could fly. >>>> Why is that a bad argument? After all, each of the first two points is >>>> incontestably true. It is a bad argument because there is a complicated >>>> multi-factor relation behind any “true” concept of cause. The above not >>>> only leaves out things, it does so in a way that is designed to distort. >>>> There are probably many reasons this pig (and others) don’t fly. For >>>> instance, maybe they just don’t want to. A careful man might worry that, >>>> even if the pig had feathers, he still wouldn’t want to, which would keep >>>> us from concluding he “could fly”. >>>> >>>> So, if the FDA approvers had been faster off the mark “could” the >>>> vaccines have been brought to market faster? (Btw, great language; keeps >>>> our minds in the right frame: they are not “made available to people”; they >>>> are “brought to market”.) “Would” they then have saved hundreds of >>>> thousand of lives _worldwide_? >>>> >>>> So let’s go through some context-seeking questions. >>>> 1. [dumb and annoying: worldwide?]. FDA is a US agency. How much do we >>>> think that US FDA approval of vaccines made in the US could have saved >>>> lives worldwide in 2020? (Is Moderna even used outside the US? Have any >>>> vaccines originally bought by the US government from either Pfizer or >>>> Moderna been distributed outside the US?) Does Astra's use in any country >>>> besides the US depend on US approval? So the “worldwide” looks to me like >>>> a red herring, put there to allow bigger numbers who “would conceivably >>>> have” been saved, but not real. >>>> 2. So let’s be a bit more conservative. It could/would have saved how >>>> many lives in the US then? Hundreds of thousands? That is a reasonable >>>> number to have been saved. Do we think vaccine approval on any achievable >>>> timeframe is the major, or even an eligible, factor in their not having >>>> been saved? >>>> >>>> In my email yesterday, I used the snarky language >>>> “There was nothing else going on at the time? Hmm, can’t recall. Or >>>> since? Or still, even worse?” >>>> Glen, in his reply late-night US, I think was reminded of BLM and other >>>> social upheavals, perhaps by that comment. Those are true and also >>>> relevant, but had not been in my thought at the time of writing. I was >>>> referring, rather, to two HUGE things going on at the time: >>>> >>>> A. Almost every federal agency had had its chief offices staffed by >>>> people who were either out of their depth or incompetent, or put there as >>>> deliberate saboteurs. I would class Redfield at CDC as out of his depth >>>> and incompetent, but not a saboteur. Azar was a kind of flatly-unqualified >>>> lackey, though probably less than a pure saboteur. Giroir may have been >>>> tolerably competent, and in any case did some things okay. I forget now >>>> exactly what I thought of people like Stephen Hahn heading FDA at the time, >>>> when news was more immediate. We do have names of various others who were >>>> harassing, interfering in, and distorting the output of, multiple officers >>>> within CDC. Again, I forget which people and which news articles, but all >>>> that can be dug up. >>>> >>>> Anyway, to get to what matters: I think it is fair to say that FDA and >>>> CDC committed a couple of important errors early on (CDC in not allowing >>>> tests to be used just bypassing a superficial third screen that wasn’t >>>> essential, or accepting early German designs), FDA (maybe, though I want to >>>> revisit their reasoning) in blocking universities or others from >>>> participating on various things (was it testing?) >>>> >>>> Some of that could have been creeping incompetence within the agencies; >>>> it’s fair to ask. Maybe some of the choices were actually hard, given >>>> standing rules and available information. But I think it is sure that all >>>> of them were operating crippled, internally disrupted, I believe on cut >>>> funding and cut staffing in many cases, and certainly not by any means in >>>> their best form. We saw the same people, under good leadership, do much >>>> better, for instance under Tom Frieden on the ebola response, so I think we >>>> know they can. >>>> >>>> To criticize agencies while they are under attack by a government whose >>>> goal is to make them fail so it can eliminate them — not mentioning that >>>> any of that is going on — while suggesting that if they could be moved >>>> aside either the same government would save lots of lives, or that the >>>> lives would somehow get saved by other means not relying on the government >>>> (a question on which we have good data from the current administration’s >>>> role), was one thing I was calling a BS move. >>>> >>>> >>>> B. In parallel with the undermining of institutional function >>>> officially within the administration, there was an active and full-time >>>> campaign to amplify conflict and dysfunction in the public. It was in >>>> place at a kind of baseline from the US right-wing media before the last >>>> presidency started, added a whole new circus show starting with trump for >>>> the first six months of 2020, and then propagated down through the whole >>>> republican apparatus as the year went on, becoming even more fanatical and >>>> destructive now that he is out of office. We now have the vaccines and 30% >>>> of the country won’t use them; I am comfortable suggesting that those >>>> people were the same in 2020 as they are in 2021. Once masks were being >>>> advocated (after the early-year mess about how to handle that, as we >>>> discussed), during the long period when public health measures were _all_ >>>> we had under the best conceivable vaccine outcome, and when every country >>>> in the Eastern Hemisphere was using them to good effect, we still had half >>>> the country refusing to wear them, and all but a few right-wing politicians >>>> pouring fuel on that fire as fast as they could carry it. So it is not >>>> idle of me to say that the political effort had a strong causal role in >>>> what could or could not have been done, or what lives would have been saved >>>> by vaccines “because" there weren’t other ways to save them before. and >>>> “because” they would have been used afterward. >>>> >>>> Not only not admitting, but indeed choosing not to mention, the >>>> constant and committed role of the political right in sowing confusion, >>>> mistrust, belligerence, and sociopathic behavior as an important factor in >>>> what could/would happen in the US, is what I call a second deliberate BS >>>> move in the Gillespie presentation. >>>> >>>> (Note: I do understand that not every bad behavior in the US came from >>>> right-wing political forces. No country in the West did well, compared to >>>> many in the East, presumably because the East had experienced SARS and MERS >>>> and took these things seriously. Likewise, we learned since that the trump >>>> government didn’t have much of a plan for distribution in place beyond >>>> shipments to states; that, together with states limited by budget crises, >>>> also affected availability post-approval. So, many factors go into how >>>> much difference in mortality really turned on some number of months’ >>>> difference in FDA approval time.) >>>> >>>> >>>> Next, let’s come back to the wording “ with no compromise in safety.”. >>>> That was my point in the Hippocratic oath. I believe that is bogus several >>>> ways. Here again is the ad absurdum: I ran across the highway and didn’t >>>> get hit by a car, so clearly there wasn’t any risk in running across the >>>> highway. Nobody thinks that’s how risk assessment works, so insinuations >>>> that because some particular thing is found ex post not to have gone wrong, >>>> that shows that there would have been no compromise in not checking for it >>>> ex ante, looks to me like deliberate distortion. Please recall that when >>>> the mRNA vaccines were first found to have 90-95% efficacy, people were >>>> floored. They were hoping to get above 50% for symptomatic disease. If >>>> the vaccines had been in that expected performance range, and human >>>> challenge clinical trials had been done, how many people would have been >>>> expected to get sick, possibly severely, possibly with long-term problems, >>>> or possibly dying? Some. Not none. If a human-challenge trial had been >>>> designed to get comparable statistics to those delivered by the 66,000 >>>> people in the non-challenge clinical trials for Pfizer and Moderna taken >>>> together, maybe quite a few. Medical risk assessment is hard. There are >>>> lots of occasional but very consequential troubles that arise with such >>>> mundane things as flu vaccines — cytokine storms and crippling >>>> encephalitises, etc. (I happen to know a woman, since deceased, who lived >>>> for decades with brain damage from a flu vaccine that just happened to hit >>>> her the wrong way.) This is why approvers are careful. >>>> >>>> Yes, lots of people died in the months before a vaccine was available. >>>> How do we assess that fact, when other public health measures that could >>>> (as we know with certainty) have saved some of them were not used? >>>> >>>> Glen did mention another thing, about trust in institutions, that is >>>> dead center to this question. If I wanted to do the unpleasant thing that >>>> debaters do, I would trot out Media Trope #15 that is currently going >>>> around every outlet: Black Americans say they don’t want to get vaccinated >>>> because they don’t trust the government because of the Tuskegee syphilis >>>> trials. Good reason, but of course it is embedded in a fabric of >>>> institutional distrust that is a tilted playing field for _everything_ a >>>> government agency has to do, with every constituency for one or another >>>> reason. And that is the center of the Hippocratic oath. The reason >>>> doctors won’t do things, even if the patients are desperate and would >>>> approve them, is partly because doctors are trying to preserve medicine as >>>> a practice that can be trusted. One thing that did or didn’t go wrong in >>>> one vaccine roll-out — called after the fact — is not the relevant context >>>> for a decision structure. One could go on and on about threads in that >>>> fabric. The awful Harvard psych experiments that get trotted out because >>>> they were used on Ted Kaczynski, the LSD experiments on US servicemen, all >>>> of anatomy that was written using data from Nazi doctor dissections, for >>>> which reason it was withheld from use in medical schools for decades even >>>> though ti was the most complete data available. I don’t even know how much >>>> else across countries and wars, because I am not informed on that topic. >>>> All these together make up the decision context these agencies work under, >>>> and I think to be fair one must grapple with the difficulties that result. >>>> >>>> That brings us back to whether the FDA approval timeline, which would >>>> have been the major available expediting variable for the adeno vaccines >>>> Gillespie doesn’t mention, really had the same relation to the mRNA >>>> vaccines he does mention. I don’t think it does. Precisely because >>>> nothing had been through full clinical trial, and because mRNA is a rather >>>> different insertion than viral DNA, I think the standard for caution with >>>> the mRNA vaccines had to be much higher. We appear to have got very lucky >>>> (on the shoulders of much good design), and they seem likely be even safer >>>> with fewer side effects than viral vectors, as well as better for boosters, >>>> faster roll-out, greater mass-production scale, etc. But before 100M >>>> people got vaccinated, that wasn’t known. >>>> >>>> >>>> Anyway, I’ll stop. I have probably driven you mad with tedium if you >>>> have read this far. >>>> >>>> It’s shocking and appalling how much better a writer Gillespie is than >>>> I am, isn’t it. >>>> >>>> >>>> Eric >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,XAk8YYP6qTGO9QEPOsRf9CRp7In5tLRhTun2Y0xEVbsS1QWJru_D9r-56EnJhgPgPgBRKuK53H8iyDHSEXaE8imJbaeHYq2aXv5qXekquQpHNCRn_Q,,&typo=1> >>>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,EPnWdbsneIqQWAS2Jt3db5BkiAkUBfqY2fdWusirmD-e5dyzTAZhoeXDphii8bkEP57anx05f3_l9yVtCuT8yQmjTSdAIJnWP2jDi5EdmAs,&typo=1> >>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,ZR6LfRqQ0I_UBa8BLuAiTITnrRJN_sZ5jSixd4ZV4czyS1535D0ltTeKp1TPhVDBfvc6FxKhzw4pWfoRQLCuk-v-WLo75JgOByTWkdV4W4nv&typo=1> >>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>>> >>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> un/subscribe >>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,qJ4JzNjxsP6DeRFty4jyPS-NFM-Mggu8gj0mVh7QMYnPmDN7JbpC8kJ9XGNChzqeLY28xF01AyqloGBamGy5tmCZPj-IcD02-j8i59OEoRw,&typo=1 >>> FRIAM-COMIC >>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,OOmlBLWQcpz1TKK6djzpFzxoiehcfgU0Sd7hmUiz3vOVlvvloBYGOEQuq284ea9g1lIjlk5nAfhPW-68wC2nVNUISi9PRe-e5GDBtWkY&typo=1 >>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> >>> >>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
