"Anti-vaxxer" vs. "Vaccine Hesitancy" (Dr. Byram Bridle, pro-vaccine Immunologist )

[GOD Shines Forth!]

I'll share some observations about this. First of all I read the transcript, and it is basically boilerplate biology intended to inform and lay out potential problems. Second, most of his "hesitancy" is related to the fact that we were in uncharted waters and is well out of date by now. Yes in a generic sense, natural immunity is preferable, and probably more wide ranging in terms of variants. Third, the group he was speaking with and you in your comments is arguing for a let her rip and we will all be better when it is over strategy.
Well I am not in New Zealand but in New York, and I have experience with exponential growth in biological environments. What was obvious, was that this was a new virus that spread easily and rapidly and was deadly to a fairly large number of persons who acquired it. In March and April of last year, it was obvious that it was already overwhelming the health care systems in a first world country and that without mitigation strategies, total disaster was on the horizon. Thus that which could be done (lockdowns, personal measures such as masks, hand washing etc.) should be done and the first wave was slowed down, and in fact, we only had to accept a few patients from the overloaded downstate area before a first level of control was achieved. had these measures not been implemented, I would have seen locally the exponential growth in infections seen from areas before the lockdown and so would have New Zealand. As it was we kept it at bay till the second wave and through greater than average adherence, kept our numbers well below national averages in spite of regular contact with higher risk areas.

Now to hesitancy, again I will state that Bridle's statements in his transcript of that time are little more than boilerplate biology and I suspect tailored to his audience who were already skeptical. However, since then we have effectively done a phase III trial bigger than any that has ever been done. Admittedly two somewhat common problems were identified, a rare anaphylactic shock shortly after injection was documented. This was quickly resolved by specifying a wait time after injection that was monitored with appropriate medical care available. second, in very very rare cases, identified largely only because we have vaccinated so many people, blood clots could form and that this might be exacerbated by a particular form of treatment for those clots. Again, this seems to be now understood medicine is no longer a great danger.

At this point, we are back to another of Dr. Bridle's main arguments, that the greatest danger ultimately is from variants. In a checked population, whether by natural herd immunity or vaccine induced immunity, the rise of variants that can evade current immunity is small. However the danger in unchecked populations leading to more catastrophic problems such as seen in Italy, GB, NY and recently in India where something as simple a Oxygen to maintain patients became an issue has made it obvious that following a laisez faire approach will not work without unacceptable costs in modern society. For this reason we need to take the vaccine approach if we can and it appears that once again knowledge is moving forward at an accelerated pace. Everything we have learned in the past 100+ years has been combined and we seem to have vaccines that work developed in far less time than Dr. Bridle would have expected at the time. I think even he would agree that vaccination with current vaccines is a better option at this point than waiting for natural herd immunity or even waiting for the past standards for time to determine efficacy.

Finally hesitancy is not an illogical reaction to the situation, but as another one who has worked in biotechnology, though never trained for it, imputing conspiratorial profit motives or information sequestration is insulting. Yes Pharma is here to make a profit, and yes, information control is necessary lest someone else take advantage of my/our ideas, but I and the majority of people in the industry have/would blow the whistle if we found anything like what you are positing.

There are reasons for hesitancy, but at this point, they have largely been answered and conspiracy theories are not one of the good ones. In fact, I doubt many companies are actually making money on the current vaccines, their only chance is in developing a successful platform for a future vaccine and everything spent now is research costs ultimately.

Im away from home, but I wanted to let you know I really appreciate your post. Thanks for taking the time to address the issue. Will read in greater detail later tonight.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Im away from home, but I wanted to let you know I really appreciate your post. Thanks for taking the time to address the issue. Will read in greater detail later tonight.

You are welcome, and I will look forward to your response. Keep in mind, where we were a year ago, and where we are now.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

I'll share some observations about this. First of all I read the transcript, and it is basically boilerplate biology intended to inform and lay out potential problems. Second, most of his "hesitancy" is related to the fact that we were in uncharted waters and is well out of date by now. Yes in a generic sense, natural immunity is preferable, and probably more wide ranging in terms of variants. Third, the group he was speaking with and you in your comments is arguing for a let her rip and we will all be better when it is over strategy.
Well I am not in New Zealand but in New York, and I have experience with exponential growth in biological environments. What was obvious, was that this was a new virus that spread easily and rapidly and was deadly to a fairly large number of persons who acquired it. In March and April of last year, it was obvious that it was already overwhelming the health care systems in a first world country and that without mitigation strategies, total disaster was on the horizon. Thus that which could be done (lockdowns, personal measures such as masks, hand washing etc.) should be done and the first wave was slowed down, and in fact, we only had to accept a few patients from the overloaded downstate area before a first level of control was achieved. had these measures not been implemented, I would have seen locally the exponential growth in infections seen from areas before the lockdown and so would have New Zealand. As it was we kept it at bay till the second wave and through greater than average adherence, kept our numbers well below national averages in spite of regular contact with higher risk areas.

Now to hesitancy, again I will state that Bridle's statements in his transcript of that time are little more than boilerplate biology and I suspect tailored to his audience who were already skeptical. However, since then we have effectively done a phase III trial bigger than any that has ever been done. Admittedly two somewhat common problems were identified, a rare anaphylactic shock shortly after injection was documented. This was quickly resolved by specifying a wait time after injection that was monitored with appropriate medical care available. second, in very very rare cases, identified largely only because we have vaccinated so many people, blood clots could form and that this might be exacerbated by a particular form of treatment for those clots. Again, this seems to be now understood medicine is no longer a great danger.

At this point, we are back to another of Dr. Bridle's main arguments, that the greatest danger ultimately is from variants. In a checked population, whether by natural herd immunity or vaccine induced immunity, the rise of variants that can evade current immunity is small. However the danger in unchecked populations leading to more catastrophic problems such as seen in Italy, GB, NY and recently in India where something as simple a Oxygen to maintain patients became an issue has made it obvious that following a laisez faire approach will not work without unacceptable costs in modern society. For this reason we need to take the vaccine approach if we can and it appears that once again knowledge is moving forward at an accelerated pace. Everything we have learned in the past 100+ years has been combined and we seem to have vaccines that work developed in far less time than Dr. Bridle would have expected at the time. I think even he would agree that vaccination with current vaccines is a better option at this point than waiting for natural herd immunity or even waiting for the past standards for time to determine efficacy.

Finally hesitancy is not an illogical reaction to the situation, but as another one who has worked in biotechnology, though never trained for it, imputing conspiratorial profit motives or information sequestration is insulting. Yes Pharma is here to make a profit, and yes, information control is necessary lest someone else take advantage of my/our ideas, but I and the majority of people in the industry have/would blow the whistle if we found anything like what you are positing.

There are reasons for hesitancy, but at this point, they have largely been answered and conspiracy theories are not one of the good ones. In fact, I doubt many companies are actually making money on the current vaccines, their only chance is in developing a successful platform for a future vaccine and everything spent now is research costs ultimately.

Your post is helpful, I won't quibble with it. Thanks again for the thoughtful reply.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread was moved from the main section of Physical & Life Sciences to the NonMainstream & Controversial Science section.



​

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Marshall McLuhan grabbed a statement he heard from an IBM engineer: Information overload = Pattern recognition. McCluhan, being an early predictor of the "global village", was fascinated by the media implications of this saying.

So am I. Out of the information overload I saw several strange things happening (pattern recognition). Illogical behavior on the part of otherwise "smart" people, companies. Others have seen these too, people with "credentials" (though never enough to satisfy). There is some weird convergence going on between a certain view of the world and medicine, entertainment, commerce, etc.. Reaching for the schlocky "conspiracy theorist!" device to deny it is just tired IMO.

So you have a gut feeling that there's something not quite right about the whole thing... That's fair enough, but I note that you didn't answer the question that would provide some justification for that feeling:

What do you think are the motivations for this cover-up? Can you explain? What do you think is the agenda of the authorities here? How do you think the medical community has been 'corralled into towing the line'? Have the major media been corralled or misled too?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'll share some observations about this. First of all I read the transcript, and it is basically boilerplate biology intended to inform and lay out potential problems. Second, most of his "hesitancy" is related to the fact that we were in uncharted waters and is well out of date by now. Yes in a generic sense, natural immunity is preferable, and probably more wide ranging in terms of variants. Third, the group he was speaking with and you in your comments is arguing for a let her rip and we will all be better when it is over strategy.
Well I am not in New Zealand but in New York, and I have experience with exponential growth in biological environments. What was obvious, was that this was a new virus that spread easily and rapidly and was deadly to a fairly large number of persons who acquired it. In March and April of last year, it was obvious that it was already overwhelming the health care systems in a first world country and that without mitigation strategies, total disaster was on the horizon. Thus that which could be done (lockdowns, personal measures such as masks, hand washing etc.) should be done and the first wave was slowed down, and in fact, we only had to accept a few patients from the overloaded downstate area before a first level of control was achieved. had these measures not been implemented, I would have seen locally the exponential growth in infections seen from areas before the lockdown and so would have New Zealand. As it was we kept it at bay till the second wave and through greater than average adherence, kept our numbers well below national averages in spite of regular contact with higher risk areas.

Now to hesitancy, again I will state that Bridle's statements in his transcript of that time are little more than boilerplate biology and I suspect tailored to his audience who were already skeptical. However, since then we have effectively done a phase III trial bigger than any that has ever been done. Admittedly two somewhat common problems were identified, a rare anaphylactic shock shortly after injection was documented. This was quickly resolved by specifying a wait time after injection that was monitored with appropriate medical care available. second, in very very rare cases, identified largely only because we have vaccinated so many people, blood clots could form and that this might be exacerbated by a particular form of treatment for those clots. Again, this seems to be now understood medicine is no longer a great danger.

At this point, we are back to another of Dr. Bridle's main arguments, that the greatest danger ultimately is from variants. In a checked population, whether by natural herd immunity or vaccine induced immunity, the rise of variants that can evade current immunity is small. However the danger in unchecked populations leading to more catastrophic problems such as seen in Italy, GB, NY and recently in India where something as simple a Oxygen to maintain patients became an issue has made it obvious that following a laisez faire approach will not work without unacceptable costs in modern society. For this reason we need to take the vaccine approach if we can and it appears that once again knowledge is moving forward at an accelerated pace. Everything we have learned in the past 100+ years has been combined and we seem to have vaccines that work developed in far less time than Dr. Bridle would have expected at the time. I think even he would agree that vaccination with current vaccines is a better option at this point than waiting for natural herd immunity or even waiting for the past standards for time to determine efficacy.

Finally hesitancy is not an illogical reaction to the situation, but as another one who has worked in biotechnology, though never trained for it, imputing conspiratorial profit motives or information sequestration is insulting. Yes Pharma is here to make a profit, and yes, information control is necessary lest someone else take advantage of my/our ideas, but I and the majority of people in the industry have/would blow the whistle if we found anything like what you are positing.

There are reasons for hesitancy, but at this point, they have largely been answered and conspiracy theories are not one of the good ones. In fact, I doubt many companies are actually making money on the current vaccines, their only chance is in developing a successful platform for a future vaccine and everything spent now is research costs ultimately.

Thank you for making the effort to give the detailed explanation that I couldn't raise the enthusiasm for

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Thank you for making the effort to give the detailed explanation that I couldn't raise the enthusiasm for

Speaking of enthusiasm…we’re up to a whopping 26 posts on this thread. Even if I would satisfy all your queries, to what effect? You said "I guess this belongs in the Conspiracy Theories forum". It did get moved, but not there (though the forum it ended up in seems to have as much street cred, lol!).

I, too, liked the detailed explanation offered above, as well as the acknowledgment that Dr. Bidle made some legitimate points.

 

[Ophiolite]

Even if I would satisfy all your queries, to what effect?

• It would be the courteous thing to do.
  
• It would remove (or confirm) any suspicions you are pushing an agenda.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

• It would be the courteous thing to do.
  
• It would remove (or confirm) any suspicions you are pushing an agenda.

The agenda is being pushed elsewhere. You’re really wasting your time trying to ferret one out on a 28 reply thread that got moved—which I both cherish and love to point out—to an unfavorably viewed sub forum.

Your time is very precious. Please don’t waste any more of it.

 

[Ophiolite]

The agenda is being pushed elsewhere.

Your avoidance of a simple request suggests the reverse.

You’re really wasting your time trying to ferret one out on a 28 reply thread that got moved—which I both cherish and love to point out—to an unfavorably viewed sub forum.

Time spent seeking facts is rarely wasted.

Your time is very precious. Please don’t waste any more of it

It's my time. I think I can invest it where I think best.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Speaking of enthusiasm…we’re up to a whopping 26 posts on this thread. Even if I would satisfy all your queries, to what effect?

You don't have to answer questions relevant to your claims, but if you're unwilling or unable to give any justification for them, they're just unsupported opinions; don't expect people to take them seriously.

In a sciences forum, claims are expected to be supported with evidence or justifying argument ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Hitchens's razor.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Speaking of enthusiasm…we’re up to a whopping 26 posts on this thread. Even if I would satisfy all your queries, to what effect? You said "I guess this belongs in the Conspiracy Theories forum". It did get moved, but not there (though the forum it ended up in seems to have as much street cred, lol!).

I, too, liked the detailed explanation offered above, as well as the acknowledgment that Dr. Bidle made some legitimate points.

We still found the thread, and are responding to the thread because collecting information and analysing it is what we do for enjoyment. To all who are reading this thread, further reading at Covid Plan B is warranted. It appears to be an actual rational collection of discussions of response and efficacy of responses to the covid pandemic. As we all know, this will take years to hash out what worked and what didn't and the costs involved.