"There be trouble at mill m'lord"

[slow_runner]

More covid related vaccine news.

Do you have a sense of humour or a misplaced sense? Yes, you do?
Well, for your amusement or deep concern, that will likely be enough. ............depending on whether you have been vaccinated or not.... you trusted the authorities, or not........

Should anyone trust these people from Emergent out of Baltimore who are entrusted with our health? You decide ......................... For me? Nah, no way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyp8jdfPlmA

[pfcs49]

I am not masochistic enough to listen to more than a few minutes of that internet troll!
I don't get how he is trustworthy when he makes a living at being wildly contrarian, so, no thank you!

[slow_runner]

He is not a troll, nor is he closing his eyes and mind.

I am not masochistic enough to listen to more than a few minutes of that internet troll!
I don't get how he is trustworthy when he makes a living at being wildly contrarian, so, no thank you!

He is taking the piss, ridiculing and mocking. It is good English humour directed at a serious matter.
Anyone can choose to take whatever action they choose; watch, not watch - listen, not listen, keep a closed mind. I don't much care which.
However, it is there to be digested if a person chooses to................

You didn't watch or listen? Well. try this then. No humour or ridicule of the system here 😀

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/10/u...taminated.html

[Oddity]

Russel Brand is an actor. He is playing a part. He is not an authority nor is he insightful. Waving his arms around, speaking passionately, and using his imagination to infer strident beliefs from disparate "facts", draws in exactly the audience he wants. He is playing a game, enriching himself, and taking advantage of ignorance, and a genuine yearning for understanding, with the age old 'Universal Skeptic' shtick.

Its not rational, nor should it be taken as anything other than performative art, IMO. One man does not have all the answers, or even all the "right questions".

Being a Universal Skeptic is a classic grift. He's parlaying it to the tune of millions per month.

Good for him. Bad for anyone taking him seriously. And the rest of us.

As comedy, it's golden (in its tragedy.)

[Oddity]

He is not a troll, nor is he closing his eyes and mind.


He is taking the piss, ridiculing and mocking. It is good English humour directed at a serious matter.
Anyone can choose to take whatever action they choose; watch, not watch - listen, not listen, keep a closed mind. I don't much care which.
However, it is there to be digested if a person chooses to................

You didn't watch or listen? Well. try this then. No humour or ridicule of the system here 😀

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/10/u...taminated.html

It's not the information. It's the inferred conclusions.

Take this article: A company was producing vaccines. They discovered a problem with the process. They kept it under wraps, for a few weeks, while they quantified the problem (you know, to provide objective facts instead of imagination and inference.) They didn't tell the FDA about the issues until after their quantification. The FDA destroyed millions of contaminated doses before they ever left the factory.

Russel Brand: SEE! It's ALL LIES! You can't trust anyone but me, and us, because we have our EYES OPEN!!

Rational World: Oh. So, the system working mostly as intended, and protecting Americans from millions of contaminated doses. Awesome.

[slow_runner]

But you did read the NYTimes article?

[Oddity]

Yes. I gave my take on it. Autocorrect messed up a word for me. I fixed it.

[slow_runner]

Odd, I am sure that a number have your perspective and trust(?); I am equally convinced that many do not.
I am not anti vaccination but when any within the field of medicine and pharmacy conduct dodgy practices I will be concerned and NOT offer suggested excuses for such unethical behaviours

And in the end we have this - an assurance that no contaminated medication was released. An assurance based on information from an organisation that practiced cover ups and maybe worse?
I trust that assurance as far as my para legs could kick it.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/u...d-vaccine.html

Federal Government Cuts Ties With Troubled Vaccine Maker
Emergent BioSolutions ruined millions of doses of Covid-19

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/10/u...taminated.html

Emergent Hid Evidence of Covid Vaccine Problems at Plant, Report Says
The report sheds new light on executives’ worries...

---------------- Then there is the suppressed information and discussion on cases of adverse reactions from covid vaccines --------------

[Oddity]

Here is the thing: we have no idea that behavior was "unethical". We have no idea what the process is, or the norms, when it comes to the best practices to address issues on a pharmaceutical production line. Zero.

You are certainly free to believe it was done in "bad faith". That it was a "cover up". You are certainly free to stridently believe that the folks who have dedicated their work lives to producing (literally world saving) vaccines at this company are "Evil" and "don't care" and "unethical", and/or were fully prepared to distribute those doses just so they could make money.

But, those beliefs would not be based on evidence on that NYT article. They are based on inference and assumption.

Making those types of inferences is fine, for creating hypotheses, or "food for thought", but not for building strident beliefs willing to be fought over, IMO.

Asking questions is good. But Universal Skepticism is not healthy skepticism. It is based on filling in gaps with inference and assumption. And what RB is teaching people to do is to be Universally Skeptical. He is encouraging people to use their imagination to fill in gaps, while simultaneously pumping that "imagination" with specific (negative) interpretations that suit his market audience's predilections.

To that, I say, "No thank you."


For the record:

NOT stridently believing something, solely on the basis that I can imagine it's true, off of something a 3rd party has written, about a process which I have zero knowledge or experience, is NOT making excuses for anyone or anything, other than myself, and my awareness of my own ignorance.

I provided another, just as plausible, assumption, about how that situation went down. Not as an excuse for the company, but as a demonstration that the same "facts" can be fleshed out with other types of assumptions too, other than: "Bigpharma bad!"

I am simply not going to allow my imagination to fill in the gaps where my knowledge and understanding fall short, and something "seems fishy". That is not the basis of rational beliefs, in my world.

Certainly not the basis on which I would proselytize a message to try to convince others of anyone or anything.

Doubly certainly, considering the outcome in this case was what we'd want it to be: the doses were discovered, reported within weeks of the discovery, long before any risk to the public, and were destroyed.

I get it though: they didn't call the FDA within 60 seconds of discovering there might be a problem, so they "can't be trusted". I get it. I just think it's silly.

[slow_runner]

Haha, you can minimise as much as you wish. So, yes, if your recollection is 60 seconds, who am I to argue about the timeframe in your time zone Odd😁.
However you present it, the time is clearly stated in the article and documents.

"Emergent BioSolutions, a longtime government contractor hired to produce hundreds of millions of coronavirus vaccine doses, hid evidence of quality control problems from Food and Drug Administration inspectors in February 2021 — six weeks before it alerted federal officials that 15 million doses had been contaminated."

https://khn.org/morning-breakout/eme...-report-finds/

I am not wanting nor attempting to alter your perspective or assumptions. Even if I was a mind to, that would be a futile exercise😉😊.
The articles are there for anyone to digest, investigate or ignore.

[Oddity]

I am sympathetic, in one way, to the negative assumptions and (inductive) inferences drawn from, what that author wrote.

Everything is on a sliding scale. We don't know anything, positive or negative, about anything, other than that one day we will die.

We know somethings with 10 to the umpitysquat power of probability, but certainty always eludes us. It's a flaw of the species.

So, I will always concede to the simple fact: ANY inference MIGHT be true. On the basis of inference alone, that's a hard fact, and also a hard limit. It ONLY EVER MIGHT be true. Inference only goes so far.

That's why I think it is not the best way to build strident beliefs.

Assuming motives just isn't something I find compelling.

edit: to be clear, when using the term 'inference', I'm specially referring to the inductive quality, of reasoning from the few to the general. Compile enough evidence to deduce an inference, then we might be on to something.

[pfcs49]

Oddity, I wish I had your patience. Maybe I've become lazy in my advancing age (75), but I don't have time or patience to argue with folk anymore.

[vjls]

Oddity, I wish I had your patience. Maybe I've become lazy in my advancing age (75), but I don't have time or patience to argue with folk anymore.

they are discussing not argueing they are share their take on a subject. you watched grumpy ole men to much

[slow_runner]

they are discussing not argueing they are share their take on a subject. you watched grumpy ole men to much

Phil just feels the need to run defense for Odd .
Odd doesn't need it though

Besides, the thread notice was for anyone interested to think on and reach their own conclusions. Not to ellicit person bashing, as that does not add anything and is against the rules; sometimes. Right Odd?

It appears that the current US government, or whatever it is called, has decided to severe their arrangement with Emergent.
Probably for very good reasons. Public safety perhaps?? Embarrassment? Legal exposure? Distancing? Smoke and mirrors?
Odd, you are bound to have a considered perspective. What do you reckon could be the reasons?