I used to listen to the "quacks" and the "conspiracy theorists" on Joe Rogan because back in the past most of the conspiracy theorists he had on were pretty harmless... people like Graham Hancock, Jacques Vallee, Stephen Greer. Additionally back in the day he used to have a good balance of scientists and those discussions were interesting esp since he would ask questions from a layman perspective.
I haven't been listening to it in recent months because it seems the show has become has obsessed with covid and is all covid all the time with some comedians thrown in now and then, not to mention Spotify as a platform is kind of a chore to use for podcasts.
"On January 24, 2022 Senator Ron Johnson invited a group of world renowned doctors and medical experts to the U.S. Senate to provide a different perspective on the global pandemic response, the current state of knowledge of early and hospital treatment, vaccine efficacy and safety, what went right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be addressed long term. This 38 minute video highlights the 5-hour discussion."
The 38 minute compilation is a great, easily consumable summary - however here's the link to the full 5+ hours of testimony - https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html - which obviously has far more depth to it.
The reason I ask if you've seen it is Joe's had multiple of these highly credentialed, front-line workers (doctors, researchers, etc. with expert domain knowledge and experience), on his podcast - some multiple times.
It's going to get harder to ignore these people and what they have to say the more formal the setting the information is shared.
Another video everyone should watch is Maddie De Garay's mother giving testimony for 10 minutes of their experience of her daughter being in Pfizer's 12-15 year old vaccine clinical trial. The limitations designed into the clinical trial reporting app might be most obvious to UX designers, but I think everyone will be able to understand the design implications: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2GKPYzL_JQ
Noted Pro-Covid Senator, Ron Johnson. This is all quackery. The description is just an appeal to authority ("highly credentialed") when in reality they are regularly debunked despite their credentials: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/24/robert-malo...
And of course you didn't watch any of it, right, just an automated dismissal?
And then you didn't watch the Maddie De Garay video either, otherwise anyone who watches it and cares about integrity would be shocked - and would want to make sure it's looked into - just alone on the clinical trial reporting app design alone is highly disturbing.
Edit to add: You haven't posted in 4 years and you have few comments to begin with? That's a bit curious. I wonder what an analysis of the HN accounts that instantly jump to putting smear campaign links on these different credible, articulate doctors/researchers/experts, would look like. Any way to do such a study dang, ideally with directly or indirectly getting upvote and downvote data to see if there's other interesting patterns that emerge?
Do you expect perfection? This is classic conspiracy stuff. Latch onto some small weird things that are truly odd but probably explainable though maybe with a good deal effort. Or in some cases they are truly just incompetence or whatever. It doesn't imply some crazy vaccine conspiracy that spans the entire world. It just means there is a really complex problem and neither public health policies or vaccine producers are perfect. But how many lives did both of those things save? Probably a lot more than were saved by JR and others casting doubt on these policies and on vaccines.
It's quite telling that your standards are so low, and that you think an app purposefully designed to prevent reporting of adverse events is somehow me expecting "perfectionism."
That component on its own is not a complex problem - it's blindingly obvious.
You're trying to gaslight to categorize something as simple and obvious is a "conspiracy theory" is "classic" attempt to lazily smear and demonize, meanwhile you actually avoid addressing my specific points.
So let's address 1 of my specific points shall we, and not claim that I'm merely being a perfectionist to dismiss discussing it?
Is it a problem, yes or no, that the adverse events that could be reported by participants in at least the Pfizer mRNA clinical trial for 12-15 year olds limited what could be reported by highly specifically creating a relatively short list of relatively minor potential adverse events? Yes or no?
Now, please brainstorm and extrapolate to the potential consequences of the app that participants were provided as the only means of reporting adverse events, and write out your thoughts here.
It's obvious you don't care much for integrity as you dismiss crucial structure for an apparatus meant to and necessary to capture the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - but interestingly the operators and designers of the clinical trial decided to design the app to not allow any free-form writing option - like you and I are able to do here?
Surely you're smart enough and have enough integrity to agree that that is unacceptable, especially if you believe in the scientific method? Or perhaps you'd be okay if in scientific studies words like "harmful" weren't allowed to be used?
The avoidance and cognitive dissonance you must be experiencing to dismiss this as me being perfectionist is something else.
Did you even watch or analyze everything said in the Maddie De Garay video? I'd go line-by-line through it with you and dive into the implications if you want?
And then what about the 5+ hour long testimony that Senator Ron Johnson had on January ~25th, that included a bunch of highly credentialed frontline doctors and other experts with incredible amounts of domain experience but that have been being smeared and suppressed in the mainstream media? What are your thoughts on these highly intelligent, articulate individuals sharing their experiences and backing it up with third-party study data when necessary? Are they all perfectionists too or they're all lying too?
Here's the 38 minute shorter compilation version EVERYONE should watch even if you're not willing to dive into the studies or domain knowledge they're referencing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jMONZMuS2U (38 mins)
"On January 24, 2022 Senator Ron Johnson invited a group of world renowned doctors and medical experts to the U.S. Senate to provide a different perspective on the global pandemic response, the current state of knowledge of early and hospital treatment, vaccine efficacy and safety, what went right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be addressed long term. This 38 minute video highlights the 5-hour discussion."
P.S. Even the U.S. military is represented in these testimonial video: one of the best kept, if not the best kept dataset on a set of humans' health - where you'll hear their lawyer state that prior to the mandated vaccine there was 1.7 million issues reported during the sam period before the vaccines, once vaccines started the issues reported JUST in/by the military was OVER 20 MILLION more than the period before; so are they all lists too, unreliable sources I imagine you'll say, just like VAERS is apparently/conveniently unreliable - which if true then why/how are we even allowing deployment of new treatments if there's no apparatus to detect potential harm? We should just trust clinical trials are designed "good enough" - but not flawlessly like the scientific method would require, because we don't want to be called perfectionist do we!
Fuck ANYONE who tries to demonize or put me dowm or dismisses me when I'm concerned about the safety of children, or anyone for that matter. You should be ashamed of yourself for your current reaction to this - care about the safety of our children, by caring about the integrity and quality of clinical trials, please.
I looked into the case with Maddie, and it seems like there is NO published information on this case substantiating the claims made by her and her mother. Why is that?
--
Kids have gotten sick from the vaccine - but a lot more kids have gotten sick due to Covid.
You obviously feel very strongly about this, but no I don't see any evidence anywhere here that there was any intentional wrongdoing.
> Is it a problem, yes or no, that the adverse events that could be reported by participants in at least the Pfizer mRNA clinical trial for 12-15 year olds limited what could be reported by highly specifically creating a relatively short list of relatively minor potential adverse events? Yes or no?
It is hard to parse some of what you're saying, but what I think you're saying is is it bad that the app only permitted selection of certain things.
First, I don't know this is true. I haven't:
1) Seen the app
2) Seen multiple people talking about the app
3) Seen other apps used for similar trials
From what I know of end-users of software, and also what I know about parents and people who are politically motivated, I have a lot of skepticism about the claims in the video. Note I said skepticism, not that they are lying. I am skeptical.
I don't know if this claim is true.
But, let's assume it is true. There is another list of things I don't know:
1) Were there other ways to report these effects?
2) Is there a clinical reason why the app would be designed this way?
3) What else don't I know that should stop me from jumping to a really big conclusion? (that the entire world is in on some vaccine conspiracy).
Even if the answer is definitively "the app was designed to limit selection of adverse effects of the vaccine during the trial" there is a set of other things that I just don't know:
1) Was the app designed this way intentionally, or was it a consequence of poor planning? Or a bad software team? Again, being familiar with software, I'm skeptical that if we get this far (see all my previous points...) it was intentional
2) What else don't we know that we can't get from a ten minute video?
Your claims are remarkable - they need to be remarkably substantiated, and you're not doing that.
You're being a classic conspiracy theorist, just like I said in my first comment.
I haven't been listening to it in recent months because it seems the show has become has obsessed with covid and is all covid all the time with some comedians thrown in now and then, not to mention Spotify as a platform is kind of a chore to use for podcasts.