Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FDA advisors unanimously vote to approve Moderna's mRNA after agency drama

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 173 posts

Re: FDA advisors unanimously vote to approve Moderna's mRNA after agency drama

#111

Post by sajithdilshan »

_kulang wrote: post #99
willmadden wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. 10 our of 13 of the researchers work for Moderna or another pharma company. That "study" might as well be a marketing brochure.

Not everyone is duplicitous, and it’s not surprising that the experts on a technology work at a company that creates the technology. I assume you’d think the study was valid if the Moderna staff were testing a Pfizer vaccine?

He does have a point though, would you trust a study on how there is no long term side effects from smoking published by scientists that works for a tobacco company?

I agree that not everyone is duplicitous, but how would you know which one is and which one isn’t?

Re: FDA advisors unanimously vote to approve Moderna's mRNA after agency drama

#113

Post by antirealist »

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #96
JSR_FDED wrote: post #44

How much death and suffering does this guy have on his conscience? I’m so curious how someone goes from being a professor to a science denier? I simply can’t imagine that journey.

[flagged]

I think there are two parts of this issue. One is does the vaccine work. The other is should the govt prevent people from having it.

Scepticism is healthy, and I don't begrudge you your scepticism. The scientific consensus can be wrong, especially for issues like this where debates get heated.

But I think that's an argument for 'let people do what they want' rather than 'prevent them from doing what mainstream science seems to think is the best action'.

Re: FDA advisors unanimously vote to approve Moderna's mRNA after agency drama

#114

Post by kelnos »

chmorgan_ wrote: post #39

If Prasad thought this needed more research then it needed more research. He and the people he works with have written dozens, maybe hundreds now, of reports that expose studies that lack the rigor for definitive results, have misleading endpoints, have imbalanced arms etc. I get that anything that would slow vaccines down has somehow become political and lots of people would gladly accept the pharmaceutical companie…

> This is a blindness due to political leanings and not evidence based.

Your comment reeks of that as well.

Re: FDA advisors unanimously vote to approve Moderna's mRNA after agency drama

#115

Post by modo_mario »

boxed wrote: post #110
OrvalWintermute wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Vaccine skepticism is on the same level as flat earthism. This is not an insult to your person, but this is the reality of the science. Trading a 0.1 micromort risk once for a 1000 micromort risk over your lifetime is a crazy good deal. Put another way: that's trading ~6 minutes for ~24 days of life. You do that for every vaccine. Some vaccines have worse trades depending on your situation, and some are far better tr…

>Trading a 0.1 micromort risk once for a 1000 micromort risk

I think like with that person that found their cancer to have some dna from an mrna vaccine in it the issue is when the prominent messaging is that there is no 0.1 micromort risk. There is no risk whatsoever and everyone who says so is a looney. Immediately you'll have thousands who say i told you so and harden their conviction.

Re: FDA advisors unanimously vote to approve Moderna's mRNA after agency drama

#116

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ted_dunning wrote: post #67
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lied on his CV about being on a highly prestigious council You called this “minor CV fibbing” above. If he was lying about this when he applied for tenure, wouldn’t that be Cause?

This is usually modulated by whether the fib is about something "material". In fact, he probably would have had the same decision with or without the claim which is the essence of "not material". My own personal take is that the lying is crucial, however.

Totally agree. I’m an outsider—from finance, where I thought the bar was already low. I’m asking if this a material fib or commonplace in medicine.

Re: FDA advisors unanimously vote to approve Moderna's mRNA after agency drama

#118

Post by fabian2k »

modo_mario wrote: post #115
boxed wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vaccine skepticism is on the same level as flat earthism. This is not an insult to your person, but this is the reality of the science. Trading a 0.1 micromort risk once for a 1000 micromort risk over your lifetime is a crazy good deal. Put another way: that's trading ~6 minutes for ~24 days of life. You do that for every vaccine. Some vaccines have worse trades depending on your situation, and some are far better tr…

>Trading a 0.1 micromort risk once for a 1000 micromort risk I think like with that person that found their cancer to have some dna from an mrna vaccine in it the issue is when the prominent messaging is that there is no 0.1 micromort risk. There is no risk whatsoever and everyone who says so is a looney. Immediately you'll have thousands who say i told you so and harden their conviction.

The COVID19 vaccines were the most-discussed vaccines ever. And there was an enormous amount of coverage for the potential side effects. Recommendations were adjusted based on new data.

There was also bad communication on the topic, often when politicians got involved or due to outdated information continued to be repeated. But there certainly was a lot of public discussion about the risks of the vaccines, they were simply vastly outnumbered by the benefits of the vaccines.

Re: FDA advisors unanimously vote to approve Moderna's mRNA after agency drama

#119

Post by no-name-here »

oatmeal1 wrote: post #100
JSR_FDED wrote: post #44

How much death and suffering does this guy have on his conscience? I’m so curious how someone goes from being a professor to a science denier? I simply can’t imagine that journey.

[flagged]

Is it reasonable to describe this as a “difference of opinion between scientists”? Per the OP article:

* it was a Trump political appointee who had made a “shocking” decision to not even review the vaccine

* it was despite the objections of the subject matter experts and career scientists

* it was despite the submitted study results being exactly what the FDA had previously approved

* the vote to go the opposite direction of him was unanimous

I mean sure, you could find an odd scientist who doesn't believe in something that 99.999% of scientists agree on, appoint them as the political head of an agency to overrule the 99.999% of scientists, and call that a “difference of opinion between scientists”, but…

Re: FDA advisors unanimously vote to approve Moderna's mRNA after agency drama

#120

Post by phyzix5761 »

Gud wrote: post #85
phyzix5761 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine at some point, after earnestly trying to help the American people with real science, these people get tired of working thankless jobs where they're up against monstrous bureaucracy and just want to do something that benefits themselves and their families. Sadly, and in part because our society rarely rewards beneficial work the way it does exploitation, these people find the path of least resistance to be t…

Or perhaps he never did give a fuck?

We take comfort in fantasizing about a black and white world and condemn others without trying to understand what drove them to act this way. If, perhaps, we could understand the underlying causes we could remove them and prevent as much evil from arising in the future. But we first have to admit that cause and effect is real and applies to human behavior.
Post reply on HN