China Bashing

[Postal2]

... No, you must understand, being provided a vaccine that had been tested on volunteers ....

Who was volunteer, you? My uncle died after the second dose, suffocated in the night.

[zilp]

Do I understand you correctly that you are saying that no clinical trials were conducted with the Covid19 vaccines used in "western" countries before they were made available to the general public?

No, you repeatedly seem to struggle with understanding people correctly

Do I understand you correctly that you are more interested in telling me that I struggle with understanding people correctly than with helping me understand your position?

So, can you explain, then, how "neither was a high efficacy or any sort of effectiveness known at the time" was the result of the clinical studies that apparently had been conducted?

[Siwastaja]

Do I understand you correctly that you are more interested in telling me that I struggle with understanding people correctly

This is interesting - some people clearly don't make a clear distinction between not understanding and getting annoyed. To me, these are two different things. To be clear, I must say you are one of the most clearly communicating members here currently; all that is needed is to read exactly what you are saying, and it's very difficult to misunderstand. Yet clearly some are getting annoyed with your communication and as response, behave as if they did not understand - they do this either deliberately, or subconsciously. Then they project their own poor communication skills to those who they are annoyed at.

[jpanhalt]

I thought this goes into a reasonable, modest direction.

But this Anti-Vax discussion seems even far worse than anything regarding china. Bringing the "Nürnberger Prozesse" regarding crimes against humanity in context with medical actions to keep a pandemic under control is blood-curdlingly stupid incitement.

Nuremberg is the first item listed (see: attachment) as background for the American regulations.  You seem to be uninformed.
Source: https://clinicalcenter.nih.gov/recruit/ethics.html
   

The link mentioned at the end did not work for me.  I suspect this link is a copy:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Habib-Karim/publication/308393057_Clinical_Research_and_Basic_Ethical_Principles/links/57e28a9708aed96fbbb26c3f/Clinical-Research-and-Basic-Ethical-Principles.pdf

At American universities, anyone involved as director or participating investigator was required to study a more extensive manual (about 100 to 200 pages) and pass a test.  At least, that was the case at University of Pittsburgh in the early 1990's.

[zilp]

... No, you must understand, being provided a vaccine that had been tested on volunteers ....

Who was volunteer, you?

No, I wasn't.

But you are aware that medical treatments are tested on people other than myseelf?

My uncle died after the second dose, suffocated in the night.

I am sorry.

But for one: Of which vaccine? I obviously can't tell you who the volunteers were if I don't even know which vaccine you are talking about.

Then: You are aware that pretty much every medical treatment has risks? And that the standard for approval of medical treatments is not that it is without risk, but that that risk is outweighed by the benefits? That does not mean that every single person who receives that treatment will benefit from it. But what it does mean is that, statistically, the expected benefit is greater than the risk. After all, it might just as well have happened instead that your uncle would not have died from the vaccination, and would instead have been infected lateron, and would have survived that infection because of the vaccination. And statistically, the latter would probably have been the more likely outcome, which is probably why the vaccination was approved and recommended. And I say "probably" because I obviously don't even know what vaccine we are talking about, and under which jurisdiction it was approved.

And also: You do write your uncle died "after the second dose". Note how you didn't even write "because of the second dose". So: Do you even know that he died because of the vaccine?

After all, people die, and people sometimes die unexpectedly, and sometimes people even die with symptoms that match symptoms typical for a particular cause, but still for a completely different cause. And if you were to use a 100% safe treatment on hundred of millions of people, it is statistically almost guaranteed that quite a few people will die shortly afterwards with all kinds of symptoms. That is why it needs systematic studies and statistical analysis to figure out whether a treatment is safe, and while individual experiences like yours can be traumatizing for those affected, they don't actually in isolation tell us anything useful about the safety of a treatment.

[Postal2]

... Of which vaccine? ....

If I had any doubts about why my uncle died, I wouldn't have written about it. And you can hope that others have a bad vaccine, but yours is certainly good. Because it was made by honest and incorruptible people. In care exclusively about people and in no way about profit.

[zilp]

... Of which vaccine? ....

If I had any doubts about why my uncle died, I wouldn't have written about it.

You didn't write why your uncle died. You only wrote what happened before your uncle died.

And you can hope that others have a bad vaccine, but yours is certainly good. Because it was made by honest and incorruptible people. In care exclusively about people and in no way about profit.

You did notice that you haven't said anything that establishes that the vaccine that you uncle got was bad, right? You also noticed that you didn't even name the vaccine, right?

Also, how can it be that you only care about people, but at the same time apparently are completely uninterested in finding out whether vaccines would help people?

[Postal2]

You didn't write why your uncle died. ...

He felt ill after the first dose, and his wife asked him not to give him a second injection.

[zilp]

I thought this goes into a reasonable, modest direction.

But this Anti-Vax discussion seems even far worse than anything regarding china. Bringing the "Nürnberger Prozesse" regarding crimes against humanity in context with medical actions to keep a pandemic under control is blood-curdlingly stupid incitement.

Nuremberg is the first item listed (see: attachment) as background for the American regulations.

You do notice how "background for the American regulations" is distinct from "is the American regulation"?

And you do realize that that in particular means that the authors of the actual regulation thought that the Nuremberg Code was not in fact not appropriate as law?

At American universities, anyone involved as director or participating investigator was required to study a more extensive manual (about 100 to 200 pages) and pass a test.  At least, that was the case at University of Pittsburgh in the early 1990's.

OK. And now, could you explain how the handling of the Covid19 vaccines in the US was incompatible with that actual manual?

[Postal2]

... whether vaccines would help people?

I saw that all the talk about vaccines was carried out exclusively by stupid and illiterate people, whom I cannot trust because of their extreme stupidity.

[zilp]

You didn't write why your uncle died. ...

He felt ill after the first dose, and his wife asked him not to give him a second injection.

You still didn't write why your uncle died. Unspecified "feeling ill" is an expected effect of vaccination, because the way vaccination works is that it stimulates the immune system so that it produces antibodies against the infection that you are vaccinating against, and that tends to come with "feeling ill". Millions of people "felt ill" after Covid19 vaccinations and didn't die.

And if this was way beyond the expected effects of the vaccine: For one, how about you explain in full how you come to your conclusion, rather than waiting for me to ask for every little detail. But also, in that case, I wonder what the reponsible doctor said when informed of the effects your uncle experienced after the first dose? After all, even the safest medical treatments can be risky if incompetently administered.

[Postal2]

... Millions of people "felt ill" after Covid19 vaccinations and didn't die. ...

I congratulate them.

[zilp]

... whether vaccines would help people?

I saw that all the talk about vaccines was carried out exclusively by stupid and illiterate people, whom I cannot trust because of their extreme stupidity.

Have you looked for other people, or maybe actual studies, so you could ignore those stupid and illiterate people and still figure out whether vaccines help people?

[coppice]

Why do you think that the Nuremberg Code is relevant for determining whether human rights were violated, given that the Nuremberg Code is not even a legal document?

While not codified in law, the US is on record as requiring human experimentation to be ethical:
https://www.nih.gov/health-information/nih-clinical-research-trials-you/guiding-principles-ethical-research

Informed consent is a basic pillar of that and mandated participation is the opposite.

EDIT: In Germany, it is apparently the law: https://www.nih.gov/health-information/nih-clinical-research-trials-you/guiding-principles-ethical-research

So, you are saying that coppice's argument was bullshit, then?

The Nuremberg code has an odd status. I don't think its in any country's internal laws, but its a code of practice countries have tried to bludgeon each other with. If you feel that human rights for foreigners are different from human rights for locals I guess your point is valid.

[zilp]

... Millions of people "felt ill" after Covid19 vaccinations and didn't die. ...

I congratulate them.

I maybe should have been more explicit:

When a treatment is administered to millions of people without serious ill effects (and the observed effects being what was expected, and what the patient was informed about before they were asked for consent to the treatment), while you happen to know one person who maybe had serious ill effects, then that means that the treatment is a very low-risk treatment, which then means that is is ethical to recommend this treatment to people in general if there are significant benefits to be expected.

Also, you still haven't established that your uncle died from the vaccination. And also, somehow, it seems like you didn't see my question as to what your uncle's doctor said about the effects he had experienced after the first dose?

[RJSV]

   Wow!   Apologies to moderators,  as I screwed up,  bringing up the non-electronics topics here.

   After picking apart the various replies, I think that someone started down the path of China and human rights...again probably out of scope, here.   So, I went from there (wrongly), but no excuse, (just because I wasn't first).

   The real point I have, is the whole 'pivot' dynamic, and let's just keep THAT point as electronics supply chain arguments.

   It's almost a Grammer structure thing;   where a person puts a reply like this:
   "They (China) also supply bad or good automotive gasoline filters, but that's not the discussion, here."

See what I just did ?  I managed to express an opinion, on a China product, (is good, or is bad) but THEN blocked further discussion, by saying my comment is out of bounds!

Make sense ?

[Postal2]

... Have you looked for other people, or maybe actual studies, so you could ignore those stupid and illiterate people and still figure out whether vaccines help people?

Yes. The history of the Covid vaccine has nothing to do with them.

.... what your uncle's doctor said ....

What could he say? He simply started injecting everyone with saline solution so as not to have problems with his conscience. Many doctors did the same.

[zilp]

The Nuremberg code has an odd status. I don't think its in any country's internal laws, but its a code of practice countries have tried to bludgeon each other with. If you feel that human rights for foreigners are different from human rights for locals I guess your point is valid.

The point is that the Nuremberg Code is way too simple to be useful for determining whether something is a human rights violation, unless it is an extremely egregious case.

Operating on unwilling subjects who were taken violently from their homes without anaesthesia for no reason that could even conceivably be in the subject's interest does not need any detailed rules about what consitutes informed consent to firgure out whether that might possibly be a human rights violation, because no reasonable rules on informed consent could possibly classify that as informed consent.

This obviously does not apply to vaccinations that you can refuse without threat to your life and that were demontrated to be effective and reasonably safe in studies before they were offered to the public.

If you want to argue that under some reasonable standard, these tratments were not offered under informed consent, that's fine, but then you have to do the work to actually establish that and not just reference the Nuremberg Code, and in particular you'd have to pay attention to not use arguments that would make all medical treatments human rights violations.

[coppice]

The Nuremberg code has an odd status. I don't think its in any country's internal laws, but its a code of practice countries have tried to bludgeon each other with. If you feel that human rights for foreigners are different from human rights for locals I guess your point is valid.

The point is that the Nuremberg Code is way too simple to be useful for determining whether something is a human rights violation, unless it is an extremely egregious case.

Operating on unwilling subjects who were taken violently from their homes without anaesthesia for no reason that could even conceivably be in the subject's interest does not need any detailed rules about what consitutes informed consent to firgure out whether that might possibly be a human rights violation, because no reasonable rules on informed consent could possibly classify that as informed consent.

This obviously does not apply to vaccinations that you can refuse without threat to your life and that were demontrated to be effective and reasonably safe in studies before they were offered to the public.

If you want to argue that under some reasonable standard, these tratments were not offered under informed consent, that's fine, but then you have to do the work to actually establish that and not just reference the Nuremberg Code, and in particular you'd have to pay attention to not use arguments that would make all medical treatments human rights violations.

Purposefully destroying someone's livelihood, with no possibility of them getting similar employment elsewhere in the country, is a pretty violent act. I don't think a gun to the head is a reasonable threshold for unreasonable duress.

[ebastler]

I saw that all the talk about vaccines was carried out exclusively by stupid and illiterate people, whom I cannot trust because of their extreme stupidity.

... said the guy who is protecting his eyesight by using CRTs exclusively, avoiding the evil polarized light from LCDs.

[zilp]

... Have you looked for other people, or maybe actual studies, so you could ignore those stupid and illiterate people and still figure out whether vaccines help people?

Yes. The history of the Covid vaccine has nothing to do with them.

Has nothing to do with what?

.... what your uncle's doctor said ....

What could he say? He simply started injecting everyone with saline solution so as not to have problems with his conscience. Many doctors did the same.

So, after your uncle reported his symptoms after the first dose, the doctor injected him with saline?

Where did your uncle get the second dose from, then? Or are you saying that your uncle died after the saline injection?

[Postal2]

... said the guy who is protecting his eyesight by using CRTs exclusively, avoiding the evil polarized light from LCDs.

I didn't say that LCD has a big harm. But when a programmer works for many hours, the harm becomes noticeable. Once there were monitors with green text, as a result of a study of harm.

[vad]

What could he say? He simply started injecting everyone with saline solution so as not to have problems with his conscience. Many doctors did the same.

Thank you for confirming the current state of the medical profession in Mother Russia. I always knew it is filled with many poorly educated, poorly trained, and immoral individuals who are paid what they deserve.

[Postal2]

... I always knew it is filled with many poorly educated, poorly trained, and immoral individuals who are paid what they deserve.

You are right. But my observations show that it is the same everywhere. It is not even known where it is worse.

Has nothing to do with what?

You can't even give an example of one important person who has been working on vaccines all their life and praised the covid vaccination. Only comments from people who have no idea about the problem. These comments are for fools who will listen with their mouths open.

[zilp]

Purposefully destroying someone's livelihood, with no possibility of them getting similar employment elsewhere in the country, is a pretty violent act. I don't think a gun to the head is a reasonable threshold for unreasonable duress.

First that still doesn't make the Covid19 vaccines medical experimentation, so the Nuremberg Code in so far is almost entirely irrelevant.

Then, purposefully infecting someone with a potentially deadly virus is also a pretty violent act.

That is why it is necessary to balance these two rights against one another.

So far, you haven't done anything to do that.

If all you wanted to say was that vaccine mandates violate human rights, then that is trivially true, of course.

But that is completely trivial, because the interesting question is not whether a vaccine mandate violates human rights, but how you balance that with other human rights of other humans that are affected when you come close to them while not being vaccinated.