Great question, and definitely something we’re keeping our eyes on. The committee who makes decisions on the strains to be included in updated vaccines (VRBPAC) is meeting on May 28th.
Thank you for keeping us informed on all things related to our government's policies when it comes to these extremely important decisions. Much of this information never makes it to the public. Vaccine policy and who will be heading up our nation's health care institutions is vital if we are going to stay protected and be lead by science not fear. We have come too far to allow ourselves to regress.
The amount of money RFK, jr is wasting is infuriating. Studies that NEED to be done that won’t, scientists leaving for countries that welcome their work. Still utterly amazed this travesty has not been halted. And, of course, he’s not the only one. Dt. Is a wasteful oligarch. This country is in an unprecedented downturn.
Is that from a crank / lie-machine website (well, my phrasing)? Here?
www. coffeeandcovid .com / p /welfare-of-queens-thursday-may-14
"Agent Erdman testified that Anthony Fauci got personally involved in CIA's review of covid origins and -- literally in the middle of the night -- steered the investigation away from the gain-of-function project he'd illegally funded in Wuhan ... Senator Johnson delivered a short but passionate speech about jab injuries ..."
I'm just at a loss at what to say at this point. The liars win again, because it doesn't cost them anything to endlessly repeat lies.
If you ask me to engage with you, my general response is analogous to: Anything a Holocaust Denier says deserves no intellectual respect. I don't care if there is a teeny-tiny kernel of truth somewhere that a historian made an error. To slice that out from the enormous lies the Holocaust Deniers tell is to try to make them seem more sane and honest, which they do not deserve. These people are bad-faith actors, and you should not listen to them about anything, because they are relentlessly attempting to mislead and deceive you.
But saying that does no good, and I'm out of ideas.
Was that summary of senator Paul's words wrong? Did you understand it differently?
I will keep saying this: grievous errors were made by public health in handling covid. The is my opinion, based on what I lived through. All I see is people in the profession and their defenders deflecting any responsibility for that.
Because those who dig in and refuse to admit those errors will likely repeat them. And that is dangerous for all of us.
I encourage you and anyone here to point out some of those errors, so we can discuss them. Use sources you yourself like and respect. By all means.
Technical people having a saying "Garbage In, Garbage Out". Accurately summarizing a Holocaust Denier's argument isn't the point. Repeat: I don't care if there is a teeny-tiny kernel of truth somewhere that a historian made an error. To slice that out from the enormous lies the Holocaust Deniers tell is to try to make them seem more sane and honest, which they do not deserve.
People don't want to "admit" to errors in an environment filled with malicious deliberate liars, because the liars are going to lie about what was said. You can see this in action when Fauci tries to explain things, where every word he says is twisted and given the most mendacious interpretation possible.
This is the point where I don't want to address you directly, because I don't want to come across as harsh on you personally. Thus I phrase the point "up", against Paul, not "down" against you.
Regarding public health, it's impossible to make perfect decisions with imperfect information. The point of Paul and other cranks to use this to bash public health. Playing their rhetorical game is a losing proposition.
By the way, if you really care about the topic, you could actually read Dr. Fauci's reflections. He's quite clear, and amazingly willing to be charitable overall to underlying feelings of distrust.
Seth: X is a Holocaust Denier! Don't listen to them!
Erin: Could we talk about whether 3 + 2 is 5? Argh.
Even liars tell the truth some of the time. Those who deny that fact, are committing the fallacy of origin. And if they want to prevent the discussion of whether this or that is true, it's a good way to go about it.
Why would you need to come down harsh on me personally? As those who understand the ad hominem fallacy advise: attack the argument, not the person. Is that something you disagree with?
I responded to the "ad-hominem argument" point previously:
"I'm sorry. I'm out of patience. Call me a closed-minded fanatic. But ...
THESE PEOPLE ARE UTTER NUTCASES, COMPLETE CRANKS, BARKING-AT-THE-MOON LUNATICS!
No, I don't want to deal with the "Institute of Revisionist History" writing about how academic historians should put the Holocaust in context of other mass killings. I don't care that's formally an ad-hominem argument. I am not cut out to endlessly go around logical formalities with deluded or bad-faith actors. No solution which requires that from ordinary people is sane."
I don't know how to be clearer, that I grant that not wanting to deal with anything, anything at all, a Holocaust Denier says about "issues" in Holocaust history is, to repeat, formally an ad-hominem argument. Nonetheless, even though it is formally an ad-hominem argument, sheer sanity requires some notice that bad-faith actors will overwhelm a topic with lies. You've just confirmed that endless, repeated, malicious lying will cost them nothing. Because refusing to give intellectual respect to the next lie is formally an ad-hominem argument.
To repeat yet again, it's unworkable to require this. I don't know what to do from there. It's a loser's game to try to keep bailing the ocean of lies.
I am not asking you to deal with the "institute of revisionist history." I am asking you to deal with me, and my arguments. You object that it would mean being harsh on me. Not if you have the self-discipline to attack the argument and not the person. Do you?
One of my arguments is that public health encourages panicmongering about every infection popping up, completely out of proportion to what is currently most harming humans. And the media goes along with that. I claim that this is not only harmful to actual health of the public, inducing them to live in fear, but it also undermines trust, as a critical portion of the public have realized they are being manipulated. What do you think?
Love that yu are working with CIDRAP. As a Minnesotan, they were my go to during Covid and aprreciated Dr. Osterholm's podcast.
Will there be an updated mRNA this fall for Covid vaccines with research being stunted re: mRNA research & it’s many potential benefits?
Great question, and definitely something we’re keeping our eyes on. The committee who makes decisions on the strains to be included in updated vaccines (VRBPAC) is meeting on May 28th.
https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/vaccines-and-related-biological-products-advisory-committee/2026-meeting-materials-vaccines-and-related-biological-products-advisory-committee
Thank you for keeping us informed on all things related to our government's policies when it comes to these extremely important decisions. Much of this information never makes it to the public. Vaccine policy and who will be heading up our nation's health care institutions is vital if we are going to stay protected and be lead by science not fear. We have come too far to allow ourselves to regress.
The amount of money RFK, jr is wasting is infuriating. Studies that NEED to be done that won’t, scientists leaving for countries that welcome their work. Still utterly amazed this travesty has not been halted. And, of course, he’s not the only one. Dt. Is a wasteful oligarch. This country is in an unprecedented downturn.
An interesting testimony that is making rounds.
https://x.com/overton_news/status/2054597328124670260
Here it is, in a nutshell:
"To summarize, Senator Paul made these very important points:
Scientists are conflicted when they are both actively competing for government grants and advising on policy.
Bureaucrats misuse grant awards to steer scientific opinions toward policy preferences.
Intelligence agencies are overly concerned with politics.
Scientists, bureaucrats, and spooks keep playing word games over what “gain-of-function” means. That has got to stop.
We cannot prepare for the next pandemic until we agree on what worked and what failed in 2020."
I like the last point especially. If affects us all.
Is that from a crank / lie-machine website (well, my phrasing)? Here?
www. coffeeandcovid .com / p /welfare-of-queens-thursday-may-14
"Agent Erdman testified that Anthony Fauci got personally involved in CIA's review of covid origins and -- literally in the middle of the night -- steered the investigation away from the gain-of-function project he'd illegally funded in Wuhan ... Senator Johnson delivered a short but passionate speech about jab injuries ..."
I'm just at a loss at what to say at this point. The liars win again, because it doesn't cost them anything to endlessly repeat lies.
If you ask me to engage with you, my general response is analogous to: Anything a Holocaust Denier says deserves no intellectual respect. I don't care if there is a teeny-tiny kernel of truth somewhere that a historian made an error. To slice that out from the enormous lies the Holocaust Deniers tell is to try to make them seem more sane and honest, which they do not deserve. These people are bad-faith actors, and you should not listen to them about anything, because they are relentlessly attempting to mislead and deceive you.
But saying that does no good, and I'm out of ideas.
Was that summary of senator Paul's words wrong? Did you understand it differently?
I will keep saying this: grievous errors were made by public health in handling covid. The is my opinion, based on what I lived through. All I see is people in the profession and their defenders deflecting any responsibility for that.
Because those who dig in and refuse to admit those errors will likely repeat them. And that is dangerous for all of us.
I encourage you and anyone here to point out some of those errors, so we can discuss them. Use sources you yourself like and respect. By all means.
Technical people having a saying "Garbage In, Garbage Out". Accurately summarizing a Holocaust Denier's argument isn't the point. Repeat: I don't care if there is a teeny-tiny kernel of truth somewhere that a historian made an error. To slice that out from the enormous lies the Holocaust Deniers tell is to try to make them seem more sane and honest, which they do not deserve.
People don't want to "admit" to errors in an environment filled with malicious deliberate liars, because the liars are going to lie about what was said. You can see this in action when Fauci tries to explain things, where every word he says is twisted and given the most mendacious interpretation possible.
This is the point where I don't want to address you directly, because I don't want to come across as harsh on you personally. Thus I phrase the point "up", against Paul, not "down" against you.
Regarding public health, it's impossible to make perfect decisions with imperfect information. The point of Paul and other cranks to use this to bash public health. Playing their rhetorical game is a losing proposition.
By the way, if you really care about the topic, you could actually read Dr. Fauci's reflections. He's quite clear, and amazingly willing to be charitable overall to underlying feelings of distrust.
Here is how your argument goes, Seth.
Erin: X says that 3 + 2 = 5, let's discuss.
Seth: X is a Holocaust Denier! Don't listen to them!
Erin: Could we talk about whether 3 + 2 is 5? Argh.
Even liars tell the truth some of the time. Those who deny that fact, are committing the fallacy of origin. And if they want to prevent the discussion of whether this or that is true, it's a good way to go about it.
Why would you need to come down harsh on me personally? As those who understand the ad hominem fallacy advise: attack the argument, not the person. Is that something you disagree with?
I responded to the "ad-hominem argument" point previously:
"I'm sorry. I'm out of patience. Call me a closed-minded fanatic. But ...
THESE PEOPLE ARE UTTER NUTCASES, COMPLETE CRANKS, BARKING-AT-THE-MOON LUNATICS!
No, I don't want to deal with the "Institute of Revisionist History" writing about how academic historians should put the Holocaust in context of other mass killings. I don't care that's formally an ad-hominem argument. I am not cut out to endlessly go around logical formalities with deluded or bad-faith actors. No solution which requires that from ordinary people is sane."
I don't know how to be clearer, that I grant that not wanting to deal with anything, anything at all, a Holocaust Denier says about "issues" in Holocaust history is, to repeat, formally an ad-hominem argument. Nonetheless, even though it is formally an ad-hominem argument, sheer sanity requires some notice that bad-faith actors will overwhelm a topic with lies. You've just confirmed that endless, repeated, malicious lying will cost them nothing. Because refusing to give intellectual respect to the next lie is formally an ad-hominem argument.
To repeat yet again, it's unworkable to require this. I don't know what to do from there. It's a loser's game to try to keep bailing the ocean of lies.
I am not asking you to deal with the "institute of revisionist history." I am asking you to deal with me, and my arguments. You object that it would mean being harsh on me. Not if you have the self-discipline to attack the argument and not the person. Do you?
One of my arguments is that public health encourages panicmongering about every infection popping up, completely out of proportion to what is currently most harming humans. And the media goes along with that. I claim that this is not only harmful to actual health of the public, inducing them to live in fear, but it also undermines trust, as a critical portion of the public have realized they are being manipulated. What do you think?