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

161–170 of 173 posts

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

#161

Post by tremon »

vlovich123 wrote: post #136
nearlyepic wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This stupidity is home-grown. Blaming "enemy states" is deflection - the quicker we understand that the quicker we can get to fixing this mess.

I don’t know. Seems like the Orban government was funneling an awful lot of money to CPAC. You know, one of Putin’s closest allies. Not sure it’s genuinely home grown.

The amount of "foreign" money in US politics is absolutely dwarfed by the amount of "local business" money. The US government is being dismantled by its corporations, many of which are home grown.

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

#162

Post by jmye »

blxkd wrote: post #155
jmye wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hard pass until I see some hard data. Are you remotely qualified to understand said data? Or do you, as you did below, just want an easy opportunity to swipe at things you know you lack expertise to understand?

Are you suggesting that a governing body can recommend a medicine to the public without requiring publicly available scientific data first?

I'm suggesting that people like OP who demand "hard data" are frequently the people least equipped to understand it in any way.

Why, on earth, do you think I would be suggesting anything about governing bodies?

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

#163

Post by jmye »

oatmeal1 wrote: post #160
jmye wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a "difference of opinion" and framing it as such is intentionally and egregiously dishonest.

More histrionics.

Ah, you're one of those - any disagreement and all you can do is complain about the other person's emotional state. Did you think you were saying something to add value, here? Did you think this was a cutting, insightful comment?

Come on, make your buddies proud, "umadbro" me, next.

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

#164

Post by jfengel »

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.

How much death and suffering does this guy have on his conscience?

His what now?

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

#165

Post by willmadden »

sajithdilshan wrote: post #111
_kulang wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

After the lies and misinformation we now know we were fed during the COVID era, you would have to be insane to blindly trust this group again, especially the hacker news astroturf squad that's downvoting my comments. Hard data studies only from independent researchers, preferably double blind placebo controlled, and sterilizing vaccines only, not these leaky "get your booster this week before it mutates again" treatments.

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

#166

Post by AlexeyBelov »

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…

> Vaccine skepticism is on the same level as flat earthism

Their bio: "Christian // Father // Husband // Veteran"

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

#167

Post by AlexeyBelov »

MaxHoppersGhost wrote: post #36
epistasis wrote: post #4

The subversion of scientific expertise to replace it with podcasters and political sycophants is one of the biggest disasters of the current years. The very concept of merit has been destroyed and replaced with judgement calls on celebrity (necessary for leadership role) and subservience to the political whims of the last 15 minutes (and you had better switch in the next 15 minutes or you're out).

“Scientific expertise” was already sold out to politics as we saw during covid. The further degradation to podcast bros is the cherry on top.

Only rightoids thought science was "too political" (as they do with many things). Normal people didn't start this discourse.

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

#168

Post by sajithdilshan »

willmadden wrote: post #165
sajithdilshan wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

After the lies and misinformation we now know we were fed during the COVID era, you would have to be insane to blindly trust this group again, especially the hacker news astroturf squad that's downvoting my comments. Hard data studies only from independent researchers, preferably double blind placebo controlled, and sterilizing vaccines only, not these leaky "get your booster this week before it mutates again" treatm…

I agree with you. It seems like the pharmaceutical corporations are trying to convert vaccines into a recurring revenue model with booster shots. I wouldn't be surprised in the future if they introduce a subscription model for vaccines.

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

#169

Post by modo_mario »

boxed wrote: post #140
modo_mario wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the issue is in part also just selfishness. That 20 is in large part the kid that was brought into the hospital too late if at all. The kid that might have had astma or what have you. The 3 is potentially yours or one in your family or friend group or community. It is a government mandated death and you might already distrust the gov. A tragic event vs an authoritarian death inflicted upon you from that per…

> It is a government mandated death and you might already distrust the gov. Well.. no. It was a government RECOMMENDED death at the most. In fact, it's even more stupid. Sweden for example were so deadly afraid of anti-vaxxers that they threw away tens of thousands of doses of AstraZenecas vaccine. The one with 2 deaths per million . At the time it was estimated at 5 per million. Sweden has a population of 10 million…

Oh I know but disease is an abstract entity one can't directly address with scorn, to be held liable for direct action, etc. The government is and inaction draws less attention.

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

#170

Post by peyton »

estearum wrote: post #34
peyton wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he is so sloppy with major decisions of life and death To be clear, the FDA regulates marketing claims. “Is the label accurate?” Major decisions about life and death are between the doctor and the patient, not the FDA. It sounds like you’re taking an expansive view of this government agency’s mandate. People will push back on this at the ballot box, even if they can’t put it to words themselves.

The FDA regulates which drugs make it to market which is itself an extremely powerful force (excessively so) on conversations between you and your doctor. In the case of vaccines, FDA's decisions can quite obviously make a difference in whether we have a rampant lethal pathogen roaring through our schools and killing our children and elderly... or not. It's pedantic to the point of being outright false to say the FDA…

That’s their mandate. It’s not pedantic.
Post reply on HN