A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way • Hacker News Board

Re: A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

#321

Post by fallingknife » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

irq-1 wrote: post #320

wildmanx wrote: post #236

What shocks me most with this story is that there is a vaccine (Lymerix), and it's pretty effective (76-92 percent after three injections) but apparently some anti-vax propaganda and a class-action lawsuit essentially removed it from the market. Based on a very rare side effect. Wtf? How can that be? Just tell people the risks of side effects, and if they are ok with that risk then the manufacturer is off the hook. I…

> Just tell people the risks of side effects, and if they are ok with that risk then the manufacturer is off the hook. If a for-profit corporation includes a warning in a EULA they're off the hook?? That's definitely not the principle we should use to evaluate new drugs. If the company decided to take it off the market, when there are always lawsuits about new drugs, what should we do? Should we liberate the drug fro…

I do not want to have to ask doctors permission to get the medicine I need. Make them like lawyers where they are advisors only. If that has a side effect of letting companies off from some liability, then I will accept that trade off.

Re: A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

#322

Post by pessimizer » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 6:53 PM UTC

_huayra_ wrote: post #318

wildmanx wrote: post #236

What shocks me most with this story is that there is a vaccine (Lymerix), and it's pretty effective (76-92 percent after three injections) but apparently some anti-vax propaganda and a class-action lawsuit essentially removed it from the market. Based on a very rare side effect. Wtf? How can that be? Just tell people the risks of side effects, and if they are ok with that risk then the manufacturer is off the hook. I…

Don't worry pal I gotcha here: 1. Form The High Church of Vaccination 2. Claim vaccination as a sacrament 3. Watch the craven fascist majority of the US supreme court (i.e. all of the ones that fashion themselves as lil Scalias, but have terrible writing that reeks of double standards, if any at all, and dog whistles to their base) try to somehow toss the case for not having standing while trying to not undo any of t…

How drinking bleach became a Church ‘sacrament’

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/genesis-ii-church-bleach-cure...

Re: A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

#323

Post by lurquer » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 6:55 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #250

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between vaccine skeptic and anti-vax. Imagine if we didn't have people watching over our tech industry because that would be anti-tech, or our banking industry because that's anti-bank. No, we call them skeptics because we realize that's very different than someone who says "abolish tech and banks."

The thing is, we have that process at multiple levels from peer-review and the many stages of government approval and it's rigorous to the point that people have questioned whether it's causing problems due to delays and costs preventing development of vaccines for less widespread diseases and increasing costs. COVID-19 has provided a great example of how well this process works: even the emergency use authorizations…

If the system is susceptible to anti-vax propaganda thwarting approval of a good vaccine, doesn’t it also follow that the system is susceptible to big pharma lobbying for the approval of a bad vaccine?

If this wondrously robust multi-layered process buckles in the face of a few hysterical anti-vax groups, you should ask yourself how robust it remains in the face of a billion-dollar pharmaceutical conglomerate with politicians in their pockets.

Re: A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

#324

Post by cesnja » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 7:09 PM UTC

dmos62 wrote: post #88

In some parts of the world (e.g. the Eastern Bloc) you find tick-borne encephalitis. That's a horrible disease that can cause cerebral and neural damage. What's more, the number of reported human cases of TBE in all endemic regions of Europe have increased by almost 400% within the last three decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick-borne_encephalitis

Fun fact, since I've been vaccinted against TBE, I haven't found even a single tick biting me. And I spend even more time in the nature now since the pandemic has started.

Re: A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

#325

Post by heavyset_go » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 7:10 PM UTC

mauvehaus wrote: post #85

spicybright wrote: post #23

As a US new england-er, this is game changer for walking through woods. For those un-informed, on a walk through any woods, you should always wear high socks, and do a full body check for ticks after. Deer ticks can be as small as a few grains of sand, and near undetectable if they latch on unless you have sharp eyes. Obviously they can transmit lymes. I had a close encounter a few years ago, but very luckily giant r…

I would get this vaccine yesterday if it were available. Shit, if I were planning on spending a lot of time in the woods (like, more than I already do), I would go to a vet and see if they would give me the one that's for dogs. Untreated Lyme messes people up. A whole bunch of people I knew who thru-hiked the Appalachian Trail in 2010 got Lyme. I did not get it, but I don't think I was appreciably more cautious than…

A vet isn't going to risk their license or take on the liability of treating a human with vaccines for dogs.

Re: A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

#326

Post by dukeofdoom » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 7:10 PM UTC

markenqualitaet wrote: post #283

dukeofdoom wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, its not impossible for millions of people to have long term side effects from COVID. The absolute overconfidence in its long term safety is based on nothing other than wish full thinking. There are early signs, and warning from Doctors now. They just ignored and gaslighted by corporate media, and sadly people like you that don't know the history of previous accidents with vaccines. Early Polio Vaccines caus…

I assume you mean the vaccine. "Long term effects" here doesn't mean what you think it means.... In the past, long term side effects were still occuring with weeks or few month after the shot. However, the statistical signal may be delayed for years or decades to manifest. It's very hard to think of a way how anything could cause side effect years down the line. Vaccines do not contain beryllium or asbestos. The mRNA…

Some people are worried, just you never get here from them because they are either censored or drowned out by the corporate press.

Here's a doctor, you don't usually get to hear from raising concerns you don't seem think to exit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUE5EBPt-lU&t=1128s

Re: A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

#327

Post by acdha » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 7:21 PM UTC

lurquer wrote: post #323

acdha wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, we have that process at multiple levels from peer-review and the many stages of government approval and it's rigorous to the point that people have questioned whether it's causing problems due to delays and costs preventing development of vaccines for less widespread diseases and increasing costs. COVID-19 has provided a great example of how well this process works: even the emergency use authorizations…

If the system is susceptible to anti-vax propaganda thwarting approval of a good vaccine, doesn’t it also follow that the system is susceptible to big pharma lobbying for the approval of a bad vaccine? If this wondrously robust multi-layered process buckles in the face of a few hysterical anti-vax groups, you should ask yourself how robust it remains in the face of a billion-dollar pharmaceutical conglomerate with po…

I think you're confused on several points: the vaccine was approved following extensive safety tests but the lawsuits caused the manufacturer to decide it was not worth manufacturing. The U.S. regulators consistently found no connection between the vaccine and the complaints, so the _scientific_ side worked but the legal / business side let public safety down.

Similarly, it's no secret that companies have a vested interest in promoting their products but it's not like Pfizer says “Trust us, we employ doctors!” and the FDA says “Sounds great, no need to check!”. Each step of that process involves peer-reviewed publications, public data releases, and reviews by panels of scientific experts. It is quite valid to say that companies need to be strictly regulated to keep everyone honest but we don't have any indication that this has been happening and anyone who thinks the process is just a large pharma company waving money at doctors to buy silence really needs to learn how cut-throat academic competition is — the career benefits to being the first to report that plot would be huge! Remember also that this happens in many different countries around the world so that hypothetical conspiracy needs to be kept secrete by a multinational group of hundreds or even thousands of people.

Re: A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

#328

Post by wildmanx » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 7:31 PM UTC

irq-1 wrote: post #320

wildmanx wrote: post #236

What shocks me most with this story is that there is a vaccine (Lymerix), and it's pretty effective (76-92 percent after three injections) but apparently some anti-vax propaganda and a class-action lawsuit essentially removed it from the market. Based on a very rare side effect. Wtf? How can that be? Just tell people the risks of side effects, and if they are ok with that risk then the manufacturer is off the hook. I…

> Just tell people the risks of side effects, and if they are ok with that risk then the manufacturer is off the hook. If a for-profit corporation includes a warning in a EULA they're off the hook?? That's definitely not the principle we should use to evaluate new drugs. If the company decided to take it off the market, when there are always lawsuits about new drugs, what should we do? Should we liberate the drug fro…

You're mixing up a few things here. Every drug has a list of side effects. They are known, that's what your doctor tells you, and then you make an informed decision whether you want to take the drug or not.

It's not Medical Doctors that decided to withdraw approval and then removed it from the market. The approval was all fine. What was not fine was the public perception. Because the anti-vax campaign was very effective. Too many people started to think it's too fishy, so out of caution didn't want the shot anymore, so it became unprofitable to keep it on the market, so the manufacturer pulled it. (A bit surprising they didn't sell the IP or license it cheaply to somebody more adventurous..)

That's how your life can get impacted if the anti-vax lobby gets too strong, and that's what scares me. They can mess up their own health as much as they like, but once my life gets worse because of it, I have a problem.

Re: A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

#329

Post by acdha » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 7:32 PM UTC

abfan1127 wrote: post #279

acdha wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, we have that process at multiple levels from peer-review and the many stages of government approval and it's rigorous to the point that people have questioned whether it's causing problems due to delays and costs preventing development of vaccines for less widespread diseases and increasing costs. COVID-19 has provided a great example of how well this process works: even the emergency use authorizations…

The process has its flaws. Poorly designed drugs make it through the FDA process. Blind following is foolish. Skepticism is healthy. I don't get software updates as soon as available because, even with the testing, peer reviews, flaws still happen. Further, there were big political and financial reasons to push the vaccines through. Those are all conflicts of interest. Pfizer had millions of doses manufactured before…

I'm not saying it's perfect but rather that the skepticism you're looking for is found within the process where many scientists who are not employed by the vendor review the test results, methodology, and side effects. By the time something gets through approval, it's been tested in thousands of people with monitoring over a substantial time period (even the EUA COVID vaccines were monitored for a period of time longer than vaccine side effects have historically been observed) and reviewed by hundreds of people.

We actually have an interesting example which I think validates that process even though it comes in the unlikely form of the FDA's recent mistake approving Aducanumab. There is a lot of criticism, including IG investigations, over the approval because it was approved despite having failed to go through the process successfully. The Phase III trials were cancelled after they concluded that the drug was not successful, the FDA's internal scientific review found it did not meet the mark, and the outside scientific advisory panel rejected it so strongly that multiple panel members resigned after it was approved anyway. That to me seems like a pretty good argument that the process was doing what we expect and the way to avoid expensive mistakes is to follow it.

Re: A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

#330

Post by wildmanx » Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

abfan1127 wrote: post #279

acdha wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, we have that process at multiple levels from peer-review and the many stages of government approval and it's rigorous to the point that people have questioned whether it's causing problems due to delays and costs preventing development of vaccines for less widespread diseases and increasing costs. COVID-19 has provided a great example of how well this process works: even the emergency use authorizations…

The process has its flaws. Poorly designed drugs make it through the FDA process. Blind following is foolish. Skepticism is healthy. I don't get software updates as soon as available because, even with the testing, peer reviews, flaws still happen. Further, there were big political and financial reasons to push the vaccines through. Those are all conflicts of interest. Pfizer had millions of doses manufactured before…

You are welcome to be skeptical. But in the meantime, don't cause me to not be able to get a potentially life-saving drug. You may think it's a money grab or not tested enough or a conspiracy or a conflict of interest. Fine, don't take it. But I still want it. 1.4 million with ridiculously small number of question mark cases are good enough for me. They don't have to be for you. But let me have it. I pay for it.