The authority under which this was done has been operative and actively used for several decades. It isn't a partisan issue, it is a policy of American governance. Anyone that has worked on frontier "dual use" technologies will be familiar with the legal regime.
The only thing that changed is people are writing articles about it in the news media.
I’ve dealt with these regulations across several administrations. Nothing about this is novel, it is just receiving more attention than usual. Anyone could have started caring about this decades ago. You are making an argument from unfamiliarity with the regulations as practiced.
If it takes Trump to force people to educate themselves on how the US government actually works then I guess that is at least one good thing to come out of this.
I am aware that the government has always been involved in these types of issues. Even a season finale of silicon valley shows pied piper being required to navigate government oversight when it became successful and implied it was a badge of honor / success.
But you have to admit this policy seems ad hoc and creates the impression of opening a wide door for corruption.
It isn’t ad hoc, it happens all the time in frontier tech, this particular instance just gained public notoriety. Historically, the government has preferred to keep this reality out of the public consciousness. This time they are either unavoidable or they expect some leverage by making it public.
This was absolutely predictable, and many people made that prediction. The patterns of what tech they apply export controls to is actually pretty legible. People have long tried to ride the gray area so that their tech is not subject to export controls. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. This was never not going to be subject to it.
This isn’t a pure export control restriction. It is granting access to “trusted partners” with no criteria of how a firm or person earns that designation. It is also unclear why these models in particular were subject to a restriction or at least evaluation.
I am simply arguing that there is a more effective approach to creating a regulatory framework here. It doesn’t have to take that much effort. But this random announcement with no prior or current guidelines seems ad hoc to me.
I am making an observation of fact. My feeds are full of ignorant hot takes that clearly demonstrate people have no clue about current law or how the government actually works. Your response is a perfect demonstration of this. This is neither unique to the current administration nor supporters of a particular party.
I don’t support the admin but if you are unwilling to engage with reality then that is on you.
Make a case then based on Prior examples and why they are of the same nature and degree.
We are talking about the government giving exclusive access the the most transformative technology in human history to a select group of companies with no formal policy as to how you gain access, lose access, what you are expected to do with that access or commitment to transparency around any of this.
Also known as, the tu quoque fallacy. Just because politicians in both parties have been doing this for decades doesn't mean that this administration is not especially hypocritical for doing it after whinging so much about free speech and free markets.
If by correct you mean, inconsistent with the American tradition of the rule of law and commitment to equal protection of the law, and the emergence of an authoritarian kleptocracy that picks winners and losers. Then yes. Correct.
Which has been obvious trend the last few decades and is now being done openly and shamelessly like a tinpot dicator. Largely through a new populist protectionism ideology that is popular on social media. Which makes it much more public and well documented.
Usually companies do this stuff quietly with lots of small new rules via Congress creating barriers to entry or through national security angles like the Chips act which funneled money and tax breaks to huge weathy companies, or Boeing, or the car industry, etc.
Anthropic and OpenAI went hard in the paint pushing for AI safety and it backfired into hurting their companies rather than protecting their interests.
I’ve been critical of crony capitalism consistently on HN for a decade now. Many people just haven’t been paying attention because nobody cares to follow this stuff unless there’s a useful political angle.
If I bring a house cat to a party and you bring a tiger we could both be accused of bringing a pet to the party without asking. But only one of the pets will crush your throat and then eat your face.
I would love to see any examples of democrats being crony capitalist of the same degree as the current administration. They are selling pardons, hosting crypto dinners where the seating arrangement is based on how many coins you bought, seizing the equity of private companies like intel and the revenue of corporations in exchange for lifting export restrictions like to nvidia, holding up M&A transactions for rivals and approving transactions for allies, ignoring laws passed by congress (like the ban on TikTok) to let allies buy the assets.
I am not a favor of state capture by the capitalist class. But democrats are house cats.
>I would love to see any examples of democrats being crony capitalist of the same degree
No you wouldn't. You've established a subjective measure to the discussion by which you can refuse to acknowledge any example provided.
How about Biden leaving a bunch of equipment in Afghanistan so his weapons manufacturing buddies could get new manufacturing contracts?
How about Biden using the EPA to shut down eco friendly products in favor of his buddies' company's spill remediation that doesn't work nearly as well?
Oh well, those individually aren't "to the same degree" even if there are many more of them that cumulatively add up to a greater degree.
There are countless examples of this, as lots of others have pointed out to you across this thread. You're just choosing to walk them all back into a corner of "but it's not as bad because <insert additional criterion>."
Your opinion as given is entirely based around Trump, not government.
It's simple fanaticism. You've chosen a football team. Nothing will convince you that their quarterback sucks because he was just having a bad day every game of the season.
You can quickly stop doing this. Go research the counterpoints and see if you aren't being selective. It will require some honesty with yourself to do so. Most people find that very difficult.
Well, there are the political ideals expressed or embraced by the populace, and then there are politicians. AFAICT political parties at the national level and state level in the US is pure theater.
the question isn’t about size, it’s about who the government works for. Small government can promote private interests by not entering certain societal spaces, leaving them for profit making — education, healthcare, housing etc. But large government can also promote private interests, by directing tax dollars to corporations (and still not entering certain societal spaces).
It’s not about size, it’s about where it chooses to operate
That's always been a relative, rather than absolute statement.
Genuine question: if Democrats take power, do you expect them to be more interventionist or less interventionist with respect to AI? Bernie's jockeying leads me to suspect "more", but I could very well be wrong.
(FWIW I personally think modern AI falls in the small realm of potentially dangerous technologies that merit careful, ideally bipartisan, government oversight)
Bernie and AOC (which aren't DNC mainstream, but prominent) had just pushed for a moratorium on "AI data centers" with a definition that includes "that are used for the development or operation of AI models at scale" (trivially sidesteppable by "we build this GPU farm to sell to whoever bids for compute" - which is actually true), plus a bunch of fancy extras bundled in like "The government must review and approve AI products before they are released
to ensure that AI products are safe and effective.", while lacking actual definition of "AI" (given that we had "AI" systems since '50s).
Yeah, the bill has a cause - it recognizes some pain points. But then it haphazardly tries to address symptoms instead of underlying issues (environmental regulations, utility pricing, land use, job security), while pushing vaguely defined regulations that allow arbitrary application. As if misdirected measures and poorly defined laws aren't already a giant issue.
The whole point of Congress is to get a bunch of people with different ideas and hash them out. Ideas like this are an input, not an output, of Congress.
Congress did regulate weapons access when they passed the AECA almost 50 years ago. The rules have been refined via ITAR over time. This isn't arbitrary.
The IRA and the CHIPS Act were the "last major thing" the Dems did, and both were far better policy for tech than anything out of this current administration.
The what? More like "the whims of an eighty year old in cognitive decline and those wishing to curry or keep his favor" - quite an expansive definition of "political decision making".
It wasn’t. Biden largely didn’t do much. The trump administration does illegal things that get struck down in courts on a daily basis. We’re all very desensitized to it.
But yes, Biden was old and cognitively not well. But his “whims” didn’t exist much, and they were always fairly reasonable. Trump is the most unreasonable president, most likely in US history. I would even categorize Andrew Jackson as more restrained.
> I think they’d try to get something through Congress to regulate the industry in a rules-based way.
Is that a joke? We're back in a spat with Iran because Obama refused to engage with Congress, as required by our constitution, to enter the USA in any binding deal.
Any AI actions from the next admin is going to be executive yolos.
Having an a collective economy governed by the “free market” is like having a pile of stones governed by gravity. There exists a primary directive force, but if you want to construct a cathedral or a bomb shelter, you need to impose some constraints, lest you revert to the angle of repose.
This is a very bad analogy. Markets behave like an imperfect optimisation algorithm, and you can prove that, under some conditions which are most often met, they give people what they want.
In fact, you can almost always expect governments to be less effective and less rational than markets in allocating resources to satisfy the desires of people, even when democratic. You can prove it either by using the same logic that tells you when markets fail (externalities, information asymmetry), or empirically by looking at what was basically the most perfect A/B test we had on society over the 20th century. Although it was a comparison between mixed economies and fully centralised ones, there is no reason to expect the optimum mix of centralisation/distribution to be closer to the worst-performing one (the fully centralised one).
You can't prove your free-market theory because it's not falsifiable.
This is why arguments about this go in circles. You either argue from a pure theoretic POV back and forth, or you go off data - at which point, bringing up every failure of free markets (like, obviously, US healthcare) is dismissed as "not really a free market"
Even the theoreticians on the free-market side are far less solid than.. all the other sides (behavioural economics, information asymmetry.. even Marx) but I regard it as deeply unpragmatic when there's so much data out there indicating what actually happens in the real world when you go one way or the other.
> You can't prove your free-market theory because it's not falsifiable.
You can prove the logic part starting from the assumptions. It's also falsifiable. I just mentioned it was literally the most controlled test on human society you could make. We tested by splitting societies at the level of the entire planet, states and cities.
US healthcare is mostly not a free market; by free market, at minimum, I mean that the quantities and prices (ideally even the quality) are not set. The US healthcare system has a fixed number of practitioners who can get a license every year. This is as far as a market can be from being free (together with the case of having price controls). In fact, free market theory predicts that when you restrict quantity, you get higher prices for the same quality.
It literally predicts the US situation.
It's funny you mention Marx, given I regard most of his claims as either unfalsifiable or easily proven false.
at which point, bringing up every failure of free markets (like, obviously, US healthcare) is dismissed as "not really a free market"
I mean, it's not. In a free market you'd have a choice of insurance providers rather than having to take whatever plan your employer offers, and you'd have some idea of what the hospital is going to charge you beforehand rather than receiving random bills for weeks.
Just to be clear, my definition of free-market is just that there is no centralised authority that can use force to set prices/quantities/quality/type of services offered.
Of course, the fact that the employer has to offer health insurance in some cases is part of it not being a free market.
But there are more fundamental things that make the US healthcare very far from being a free market. The first one is that the supply of doctors is capped in quantity, not just in quality.
Ever since I've been conscious (the 80s), it's been the party of fear, violence and greed. They've consistently nominated actual clowns for positions of power. B-movie actor Ronald Reagan... Dan Quayle... Sarah Palin... the current, truly stunning iteration of absolute moral and intellectual bankruptcy TWICE after he killed hundreds of thousands of people due to COVID/vaccine skepticism and staged a violent attack on the capitol after losing a democratic election.
Free market? Small government? Big police state, trillions in defense contractor grift, unsustainable tax breaks to the wealthiest leading to massive spending deficits... all while doing everything to erode access to education, healthcare and basic services.
It is just utterly baffling to me. I'm... well along the spectrum... so people not responding correctly to obvious information is just something I've gotten used to but just... wow.
It tells me that the people who buy Republican politicians make money from selling Americans guns, and somebody with influence thinks they can make money by restricting LLM release.
> It is just utterly baffling to me. I'm... well along the spectrum... so people not responding correctly to obvious information is just something I've gotten used to but just... wow.
People get quite a kick out of seeing people they don't like get hurt. They can stay entertained by that for a long time until it bites them.
Only now is it finally biting with the collapse of the rural medical clinics, the war induced spike in the price of gasoline, etc.
That's probably playing a big part in the seeming shift in the electorate in every election.
Literally who? The young MAGA folks in congress like Josh Hawley certainly don’t. I guess Rand Paul is a free market guy, but he’s pretty much the only one. Even Susan Colins is signing onto tariffs and other nonsense.
I disagree. They're simply engaging in culture war posturing where socialism is simply a byword for "bad people". They call democrats socialists and argue for nationalizing OpenAI and some steel mills. They aren't for the free market, they're just dumb. Marjorie Taylor Greene typifies this kind of behavior.
If you think that anthropic wasn't pushing aggressive regulatory capture legislation in the Biden administration, why do you think they hired a bunch of people from it?
What Anthropic was pushing for under Biden has very little to do with the values Republicans have been espousing (and failing to live up to) for decades. That's kind of the point op was making. Republicans run on small government but do not deliver it. Democrats do not run on small government. Democrat Presidents campaign on and push for things like the ACA, they don't have fun quips like, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.”
A clear regulatory framework to operate within allows businesses to operate within it rather than get surprised by the King's whims upending their business on every few Fridays. If you expect regulation will eventually happen, pushing for it to happen on terms you're able to comply with rather than as haphazard surprises is pretty sensible.
It's very fashionable to hate on the current administration, despite what the previous administration was doing. That's reality and I'll be punished to hell for saying so.
If you don't want the current administration to be blindly hated, perhaps you should ask the president to stop publishing daily statements about how much he hates various people. You reap what you sow.
Again, you're seeing this as some kind of clever invariant of politics, but it's not. People are blind to politicians on their side because Donald Trump has spent the past 10 years working hard to make sure that everyone in politics is constantly enraged at the other side. You're being "punished to hell", in your words, because you're blaming Trump's passionate embrace of hatred-based politics on his opponents.
They have affiliated themselves to him. Watch, within a month of Democrats being back in power they’ll be harping small government, denigrating the national debt they ballooned themselves. There’s no reason to help them attempt to disavow it.
> the entire party aggressively supporting him and everything he does.
That's untrue.
If you do some homework you will see Republican politicians and the Supreme Court disagreeing on a number of issues. Amongst Republican voters, his approval rating has been sliding and is now below 80% in most polls.
You have to remember that very very few voters agree/support everything their party does. If that wasn't the case, then not a single American voter is morally pure.
They passed one major piece of legislation since he took office and it was loaded with pork to get everyone onboard. I wouldn't call that aggressive. The Right is very fractured right now.
I can't tell if you're disingenuous or just ignorant. The Trump admin has been completely coopted by the pro-Israel lobby and Big Tech. He betrayed his entire base. He's ruling by executive fiat (EOs). Anyone that speaks out publicly for the original platform gets a primary challenger funded by Miriam Adelson or threats. See Thomas Massie, MTG, Lauren Boebert, etc. Are you paying attention at all? The Boomers watching Fox News propaganda in their nursing homes all day are not a reflection of party unity.
The Fox News boomers were pawns, but everyone knew that. Trump is a “money talks” kind of guy, that’s why people voted for him.
Yes that was shortsighted but it’s worked out well for trump. He can basically just… do whatever. Nobody needs to legislate, he’s essentially congress at this point.
Trump has an 87% approval rating amongst Republicans as of the last poll I can find.
While Trump is a megalomanic and does whatever he wants, he has the mandate of the Republican party, whose elected officials could choose at any moment to end this by withdrawing support.
This is what they want. When they say "small government" they mean "small autocratic ruling party". When they say "personal responsibility" they mean "societal harm burdened on the individual"
When they say "liberty" they mean liberty to oppress others ... I've heard this language my whole life. I know what these people stand for and I've seen it in practice. It's heinous and repulsive.
The entire Republican party in all branches of government is supporting Trump. His politics and the Republican party politics are one and the same. The last election the party did not have a platform because, quite literally, they said that whatever Trump says _is_ their platform.
> a much greater injury and death rate attributable to vaccines than COVID.
Explain Australia then, specifically the absence of nation wide injury and death following the short period in which 98% of a population ~ 24 million or so, got two to three rounds of vaccines with a new definition.
Fantastic case study for such widespread ill effects to clearly and unambiguously show up - the country is isolated and has had world class epidemiology researchers plugged into integrated national health records for 50+ years.
Checking back on this thread and wow. The absolutely rabid energy with which Republicans will fabricate information to evade personal moral responsibility for making the COVID death toll worse is incredible.
We have a completely medically illiterate user citing (one) of an endless supply of studies as evidence that vaccines killed people. The study doesn't say that... which isn't surprising because the rest of the literature doesn't either... and nor does the consensus of qualified medical practitioners...
It's as if the prospect of being responsible for contributing to the deaths of countless innocent people made them hallucinate exonerating text.
I wonder if post-genocide states see similar outbursts of insane flights of fiction about basic facts. I imagine they do.
You sound exactly like a preacher. No math, no science.
Seriously, read the thread. Look how hard it is to get people that claim to be on the side of science to do any science! Just do a little math.
Yet you'll tell scientists to their face they are wrong.
A bunch of people who maybe have a degree in marketing giving political opinion as medical advice.
>nor does the consensus of qualified medical practitioners
According to who? Where did you get this from? Aren't you embarrassed to admit that you got it from a media outlet and you've found no such meta study to cite?
According to the consensus, as it appears from the huge amount of research on the topic, COVID RNA treatments exhibit a much higher rate of negative outcomes than traditional vaccines and a higher rate than COVID infection, which mostly goes undetected and causes no symptoms. That's in line with CDC data, and it's according to the CDC statements about the vaccine as well.
The CDC / FDA never made any statements about this treatment being safer than getting COVID for a healthy child or adult as individuals. The purpose of recommending that the risk of treatment was necessary, is for the protection of those with weakened immune systems through herd immunity. For the public good, essentially.
Everything I've said here is backed by the FDA and CDC websites, and you can very easily confirm it. Please do so.
You WANT to be on the side of science, and I love that, but it looks to me like you are on the side of a media conglomerate instead. They've told you that they are the arbiter of science, and you believe them.
What was that injury rate in Australia, how many of the > 20 million vaccine recipients died or were injured by vaccines.
Where are these deaths and injuries greater in magnitude than COVID deaths and injuries?
I cannot answer for you or your governments odd notions. Feel free to concentrate on actually making and landing a solid point with peer commenter azan.
I've landed inarguable points with azan but I'm sure they aren't a "peer" by any definition. Claiming to have a PhD online isn't difficult. But you'll note they went silent when asked to check CDC data.
What about Australia? Want to check that data? Does Australia have a freedom of information system where we can get their data and is it open for doctors to report or is the data cleaned first before it's published?
Let's download it and see what it really says. Plenty of free SQL servers available, and today even people that don't write code can get an LLM to help.
Jump in and be scientist! Are you willing or were you just here to pose like the media told you to?
Okay. I can't say I care much who he represents. I'm more concerned with the fact that half the country is okay with pardoning a war criminal who committed a biological weapons attack on literally every country in the world, including the US.
If I have to pick between a murderer and literally killing everyone on earth I'll pick the murderer because I'm not a psychopath.
Right but at the end of the day how many people died from the Covid vaccine?
We all need a healthy dose of reality. Yes the vaccine rollout was not perfect. But 1 million Americans died from Covid. And that’s that, if we can’t even agree on reality then there’s no point in arguing.
No, 1M Americans died with COVID. Not from COVID. I'm quoting the CDC on that. And that's a very different meaning.
Anyway, that's counter to the study.
And it's counter to the facts after Pfizer's study. Many people died from the vaccine. You can pull the data from the CDC like I did, and like many many others did. It's available as a SQL db.
27% negative outcomes in the study. Lines up pretty well with the CDC data.
Can you link said study, or, like, any study? Or does it mostly just exist in your mind?
Regardless, this idea that the statistics of Covid were fabricated is just baloney. No, 1 million people died FROM COVID. If you have Covid and the have major lung complications and die, then Covid killed you. Right. If someone has, say, ovarian cancer that has spread to the lungs and they die of pneumonia, then they died from ovarian cancer. That’s how that works.
Covid is a somewhat deadly disease, but not too deadly. That much is true. What it is, though, is extremely contagious and a pandemic. That means hundreds of millions of people got covid in America alone. When that many people get sick, yes, the death toll will be very high.
Yes that’s unfortunate. But that’s what happened, that’s why we had the urgency we had, and ignoring the truth won’t change anything about the past.
What we also know is that hundreds of millions of Americans received Covid vaccines. If the death toll was higher from the vaccines like you claim, we would see that, but we just don’t. It’s just plainly untrue. I knew multiple people personally who died from Covid. I did not see anyone, or even hear of anyone, who died from the Covid vaccines. After a certain point we need to employ very basic reasoning skills to analyze what’s going on around us. If something sounds ludicrous, it might just be, and we need to do some napkin math to see if it checks out. What you’re saying just does not stand up to even the most minuscule amount of scrutiny.
The 27% is for adverse effects, which includes symptoms as simple as a headache or fatigue. Bearing in mind the placebo group itself had a 12% rate of adverse effects. I legitimately don’t understand how, knowing that, you could expect a 1/500,000 rate of adverse effects. I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith. Also, no, regular vaccines do not have an adverse effect rate of 1/500,000. Pain and discomfort is common for all vaccines.
If you bother to read the conclusions sections, you’d see the risk is on-par with other viral vaccines AND the covid vaccine is highly effective. If you’re going to reply, please start off by being honest. I’m not going to argue with someone who is arguing in bad faith, it’s a waste of my time.
> 27% is for adverse effects, which includes symptoms as simple as a headache or fatigue.
That's more than 300x the rate for COVID infection for the same set of symptoms (which also include stroke, death, and paralysis that you conveniently overlooked) at the time of the study (it's increased more than 100x that, as of today).
Considering the vaccine uses the same proteins as the infection, just concentrated, that makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
I'm here to help if you need it. The math is right there, all you need to do is remove the media brainwashing from your eye glasses when you read the research and just read the study as it is, like a scientist.
It's pretty simple. We teach this same method of writing science articles to 8th graders and they get it. But most people failed science in high school (aka C's transfer), then go vote as if Fox and CNN gave them credentials, sadly.
Hopefully, you'll commit to being a scientist and do better than that.
I'll help you along; the people claiming to be "on the side of science" and are widely publicized, are perverting public opinion on real science. And it's costing a lot of lives, because now people that can't do basic math like this think vaccines altogether are bad.
Is that your goal? I sure hope not.
>no, regular vaccines do not have an adverse effect rate of 1/500,000
MMR? Nearly all regularly administered vaccines, by the traditional definition (not the post COVID definition) using dead or weakened viruses, have a much lower adverse reaction rate than that. You're saying what you're saying, but you're not looking at the research on those vaccines apparently. 1/500,000 is a very high number amongst those vaccines, factually.
>If you bother to read the conclusions sections
You mean if I stop doing math and use the corporate profiteering summary as my moral compass?
No thanks. I'll leave that to the people that can't do math.
I believe in assisted suicide, and evolution. By all means, go get vaccinated.
Just stop telling people that they are stupid for doing math and science.
This isn't your industry. It belongs to the mathematicians and the researchers. YouTube is not the arbiter of knowledge.
Please, if any of this comes off as bad faith, let me correct that. I'm in good faith telling everyone to stop trying to sell me dog shit while calling it an ice cream sandwich.
Yes, this is bad faith plainly and any reasonable person will agree. You’re choosing to simply ignore a lot of stuff so your conclusions make sense.
You’re ignoring the placebo group entirely. Why does that matter? injecting even a placebo has high rate of adverse effects. The injection mechanism itself is not free - it hurts.
You’re ignoring the conclusions under some hand way “uhhh media!” pretense. If you disagree with the conclusions, great - defend that. No hand wavy bullshit.
You’re ignoring other vaccines. If the placebo has a 12% rate of adverse effects, how could MMR have a rate orders of magnitude lower? Did they beam the MMR vaccine directly into people’s skulls? This just makes zero sense at all, and demonstrates either a foundation gap in reasoning skills or bad faith arguing.
The bigger picture is: I am absolutely not assuming you’re stupid. The exact opposite, actually. You’re a very smart person. What that leaves is that you’re arguing in bad faith. I argue that’s worse, this is an inversion of Hanson’s razor. But it’s obvious to me you’ve thought about this. So, where does that leave us?
The seemingly higher incidence for placebo when compared with MMR can be explained.
1. First, the placebo data comes from an article that doesn't meet several academic standards for peer reviewed research.
The researchers were the reviewers and they all work at Pfizer. So, peer review was not done at all.
AND the results were not published for us to see. So we have to take their word for it that they performed any research whatsoever.
So, you're comparing peer reviewed research on MMR and 30 years of CDC data on MMR, to the unrelated placebo rate reported in a paper on mRNA vaccination that wasn't even peer reviewed.
Can we agree that peer reviewed research is a more preferrable source for information?
2. We're comparing apples to oranges. MMR is around 10% rate for mild reactions. Around one third of the 27% reported for Pfizer's mRNA COVID vaccine. And that's still lower than the reported placebo rate. We need to be careful which symptoms count as reactions to placebo since that differs between studies.
So, COVID vaccine is 3x more likely to cause an adverse reaction when we generally include all mild reactions like fever, even where mild fever is a desirable outcome for MMR but not for COVID vaccine.
We'd need to look at more severe outcomes for COVID vaccine to compare with the severe outcomes for MMR if you want to get to the 300x numbers.
But let's cut to the chase, is 3x more dangerous enough to say that it might not be for everyone? I sure think so.
No response. You don't want to take back the bad faith accusation at least?
I could definitely and more rightfully accuse you now. Right? Good faith and all that?
Honest take, you're angry that you didn't know that the FDA relied on research that wasn't peer reviewed, that they are still hiding the results from that study (ongoing lawsuits), and that your news channel lied to you. But you're directing that anger at me because that's hard to swallow and, well, that same news channel told you that I'm a bad person if I know more about science than their editors who went to a trade school for marketing and graphic design.
It's insane what's happening.
You're convinced so much that your first reaction (read above) was to claim that the research didn't say anything close to what I'm saying.
But it's the exact opposite, isn't it? It doesn't say anything close to what you thought it says.
I think many of us are in a place where editors at a media and marketing company command many people's religious belief so much that we can't even read research without stopping in the middle to go "Aha! I knew it. You're a bad guy for being a scientist!"
And that's really what I am trying to say. Science is not that.
Math please? Specifically citing the research that the FDA cited from the NEJoM. Please include the published injury rate, and the published efficacy.
If you can't make a point with the math, then don't bother replying. My invitation is to discuss with scientists, to be clear. CNN is not qualified as a scientific body, despite claiming to be. I'm aware that most of the US believes that CNN is the arbiter of science. I'm referring specifically to a scientific paper published by the manufacturer of the drug you are pedaling.
And that's my point. You can't. You're consuming media and calling it science. You're lying to yourself.
Please prove me wrong.
Look at the injury rate in the NEJoM study submitted by Pfizer, and look at the rate of disease symptoms (later decreased but we'll ignore that for the sake of driving my point home), and tell me what the rest of us scientists missed. Or at least admit that you didn't really notice that it killed and injured more people in Pfizer's own study than you had realized (for the sake of honest scientists if you care to call yourself one).
I'll even overlook the fact that all the "peer reviewers" were Pfizer employees who couldn't bring themselves to the level of shame so as to falsify the results. Instead they themselves published blatantly that the drug is more destructive than the disease it purports to treat. Thankfully we have some moral fiber in the field.
But you did not make any point, you keep using buzzword without referencing any data. You did not even link exact study you are talking about (there are lots of nejm covid studies…). You did not reference a single number. So please, if you want math actually make your point without bullshit about me consuming media etc.
Seriously? There is only one study that the FDA cited to claim that it was safe and effective submitted by Pfizer. But let me help then. Let's ignore the fact that the head of the FDA was fired and replaced because he refused to say so. Let's just look at the research directly.
If you can't actually say explicitly what your argument is, that is a very strong signal that you don't know what you're talking about and are likely to be wrong.
If you claim you don't have time, or it's not your job to educate us... that is an obvious copout, as you have already written hundreds of words and were the one to introduce this topic.
I can't point to anything while HN limits the number of comments we can post.
Now that the waiting period has passed, you can read the study or my other comments to discover that nearly a third of participants in the treatment group had negative outcomes.
It is absolutely my job to educate you, because if I don't you'll force me to take medications that produce exponentially worse outcomes because you refuse to read the study that the manufacturer provided with the treatment.
Yes, that study shows safety of the vaccine, so what’s your point? Could you actually just say what’s your point? I can’t tell you why you are wrong if you don’t tell me what’s your problem.
Name another vaccine (pre COVID definition) that has a similar statistical outcome.
Pre-COVID routine vaccines have a 1/500,000 or less negative rate. Hell, even 1/10,000 would be reasonable in an emergency (should be optional at that rate though).
1/3 is not okay. That's far worse than the disease it's supposed to treat.
You need to have horns and a tail to call 1/3 safe. There is no justification for that.
And look what happened as a result. People stopped trusting their govt and vaccines altogether and we have outbreaks of things we never saw in our lifetime.
Wait, so you say that democrats killed lots of people because 1/3 of people taking Pfizer vaccine got transient, fully reversible relatively mild symptoms? That’s absolutely insane. We know perfectly well that Covid vaccines save lives - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7944975/ and even article you’ve posted shows that it’s safe. I just can’t believe that this is the point you are making. In a million years I would not guess that democrats killing people refers to actually giving them few days of fever or fatigue. People stopped trusting vaccines because of other people spewing dumb bullshit like that.
The Democrats killing people point is about the NIH investment in illegal research in Wuhan, covering it up, releasing it, and preemptively pardoning it, robbing the public of a fair trial and justice. You're conflating two separate points.
To the point you're ignoring, this study does not show reasonable safety. You're nuts. Death is not reversible! Scarring of heart tissue is not reversible. And nearly all conditions of COVID are also very much reversible so that's not a good comparison point in favor of the treatment anyway.
I don't get from you that you're reading in good faith.
Be a scientist. Read it critically. Poke holes in it, like you would a lab partner or a student. Remember, this was not peer reviewed! The reviewers are the researchers. The study itself doesn't meet the basic threshold for scientific rigor as it is. YOU need to review it.
This wasn't a no big deal incidence rate. Find another approved vaccine with a number that high.
You can't.
Pull the CDC data into any SQL server and see if any treatment in history has anywhere near the number of negative reactions. These are not "got a red spot" or "said ouch" incidents.
These are cases of permanent paralysis, heart attacks in unusually young patients, strokes, and death.
Just filter for those specifically and you'll see that the rate of incidence is 100s of times greater than other vaccines.
> This study does not show reasonable safety. You're nuts. Death is not reversible! Scarring of heart tissue is not reversible.
Can you actually read? The high number of adverse effects you mention refers to things like transient fever, numbers for myocarditis is much lower for vaccine vs covid, and for death it's much, much, much lower. I'm sorry but you hold your views only because you don't understand what you are reading. People who told you to do your own research owe you an apology - you are not capable of even reading very simple scientific article.
> Again, if this was a no big deal incidence rate, find another vaccine whith a number that high. Good luck.
But I don't care about transient fever or transient fatigue and why would anyone care?
Anyway I'm ending this discussion - you clearly have absolutely zero idea about medicine. Shame that you can't see how stupid your opinions are and feel urge to share them.
I was still writing my comment during your emotional outburst. Reinforcing stereotypes about the Left it seems.
You haven't addressed any of the research or the CDC data. And you've conflated two data sets.
You're also still ignoring the actual study to claim that the incidences reported didn't include fatalities when they did. (That number went up dramatically in the CDC data, even if it was low in the study by comparison but still insanely high when comparing other vaccines.)
I'll excuse your emotions, but I'll not excuse you for valuing them more highly than the data.
If you'll get mad and make decisions to discontinue discussion without clear understanding, then you'll just as soon make decisions that kill the public, which is why I've stopped voting left. It's YOUR behavior that reinforces for me that the left is not composed of scientists, but angry religious zealots.
So respectfully, I hope you're not a PhD, and not in politics. Based on your responses, I think you're just asking ChatGPT to summarize for you and it simply doesn't have the CDC data. Use a MySQL connector and feed it the data.
Come back after you've compared the CDC data with other vaccines. At least give me the name of the SQL database to prove that you checked and you aren't a fraud.
Go do the legwork to prove to yourself and others that I'm really wrong, the scientific way. That is, no shortcuts, go download the data.
Considering there's no such thing as a "free market" I've been laughing for a real long time. Markets require regulation and enforcement to function.
The US government was created to protect the interests of rich, white, male slave owners. And if you look at Louisiana State Penintentiary (often called "Angola"), which is essentialy a Southern plantation with forced labor, you realize not as much has changed as you might otherwise think.
> My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.
While chattel slavery ended when the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, slavery continued through debt bondage and convict leasing up until 1941 where FDR suddenly decided to aggressively prosecute the practice for fear of the Japanese using it for propaganda value. I'm referring to Circular 3591 [2]. And while that heavily curtailed abuse (eg by locking people up essentially indefinitely for "vagrancy" or imaged debts), forced prison labor continues to this day, including private companies profiting from prison labor.
Also, while the Confederacy lost the Civil War, the South arguably won. Reconstruction saw severe curtailment of newly-established civil rights for former enslaved people. And after Reconstruction came Jim Crow until the 1960s.
The point of slavery was money, and the point of money was power. By the time of the civil war the real power for the ruling class was coming from industrialization.
