Second Turnback This Week Due to Unruly Pax

[TeeVee]

And yet, big pharma is not a lesser part of the reason why a lot of serious diseases are now eradicated, preventable, curable or at least treatable and life expectancy increased a lot, and Boeing airplanes are still extremely safe (with the notable criminal exception of the early MAX, now fixed): the 737 NG family has EXACTLY the same hull loss rate and fatal hull loss rate than the Airbus A320 family, at 0.19 and 0.09 events every million departures.

So yeah, all for-profit organizations are in the business of making money, but the system somehow still works.

not saying it doesn't. my point is not to blindly trust an entity because its business is "x." question the entity because "x" is not its goal. rather, $$$$ is its goal. the product/service is secondary.

evan wants to believe and wants all of us to believe that because "The vaccine research utilized to develop the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines was and is about as rigorous as humanly possible" ( how he knows this is a different topic altogether...wait, he read it somewhere!), these "vaccines" are safe. I guess because evan has degrees in pharmacology, virology, physics, fluid dynamics, aerospace engineering, advanced computer programming, oh, and lets not forget, airbus and boeing systems architecture, we should believe him. well, maybe, maybe not.

[3WE]

i am. and i'll admit that "proof" in the legal sense is often circumstantial and kind of scary. one example: one can be convicted of murder with no weapon and even with no dead body.

We[no italics] have much higher standards of proof in Science than you lawyers do.

But, good science generally stops short of ABSOLUTE proof. (I know TeeVee knows this).

It’s more like, “This is consistent (or is not_consistent) with the hypothesis…”

ESPECIALLY IN BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS. (Which you see from the paramedic side and I see from plants and pests)…And yeah, in spite of good efforts…bias exists.

[Gabriel]

not saying it doesn't. my point is not to blindly trust an entity because its business is "x." question the entity because "x" is not its goal. rather, $$$$ is its goal. the product/service is secondary.

I do not fully agree. Some CEOs are really good guys that want a better world, in addition to a lot of $$$. But even when they don't, product/service and customer are not secondary, ESPECIALLY in terms of safety. It is a prerequisite for the $$$. There is a saying (in aviation, but could be applied to anything) that goes "Those who think that safety is expensive should try with an accident". Quality and especially safety issues have ended with companies.

But yes, science, as any other human endeavor, is, well, human, and subject to human conditions that include ignorance, mistakes, bias (whether conscious or unconscious), greed, and ole plain sonofabitchness. You have policemen that traffic drugs and high priests that rape children. So...

Now, at the end of the day, in practice, do we really have a choice other than act as if we believed that they (the for-profit organizations) really care about our safety and are taking all reasonable measures to preserve it? Or are you going to conduct your own independent medical trial each time your doctor prescribes a medicine and conduct your own D-check before boarding each plane?

[Gabriel]

Why most published research is wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q

[Evan]

not saying it doesn't. my point is not to blindly trust an entity because its business is "x.

Absolutely. Which is why we haven’t done any such thing. Emergency Use Authorization is a process of evaluation, not a process of “blind trust”. Although it is attenuated, it is still rigorous. And once approval is given, the evaluation continues. If concerns arise, the authorization is suspended. It is vigilant. There is a healthy amount of distrust.

But you know this. Are phrases like ‘blind trust’ just things lawyers throw in to win arguments? Can you stop being one long enough to have an honest discussion about the facts?

[3WE]

[Can we have] an honest discussion about the facts?

Not until you acknowledge a number facts that you actively avoid.

[TeeVee]

We[no italics] have much higher standards of proof in Science than you lawyers do.

But, good science generally stops short of ABSOLUTE proof. (I know TeeVee knows this).

It’s more like, “This is consistent (or is not_consistent) with the hypothesis…”

ESPECIALLY IN BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS. (Which you see from the paramedic side and I see from plants and pests)…And yeah, in spite of good efforts…bias exists.

i do know and agree. science "proves" by repetition and results. belief becomes proof in the sense that the scientist BELIEVES that if he repeats the expirement the results will be the same 233,956,712 times. and yeah, that is kind of a proof...

[TeeVee]

I do not fully agree. Some CEOs are really good guys that want a better world, in addition to a lot of $$$. But even when they don't, product/service and customer are not secondary, ESPECIALLY in terms of safety. It is a prerequisite for the $$$. There is a saying (in aviation, but could be applied to anything) that goes "Those who think that safety is expensive should try with an accident". Quality and especially safety issues have ended with companies.

But yes, science, as any other human endeavor, is, well, human, and subject to human conditions that include ignorance, mistakes, bias (whether conscious or unconscious), greed, and ole plain sonofabitchness. You have policemen that traffic drugs and high priests that rape children. So...

Now, at the end of the day, in practice, do we really have a choice other than act as if we believed that they (the for-profit organizations) really care about our safety and are taking all reasonable measures to preserve it? Or are you going to conduct your own independent medical trial each time your doctor prescribes a medicine and conduct your own D-check before boarding each plane?

did you watch the documentary on boeing? you should. do you invest in the market at all? you should read the uncountable stories of how corporate boards act to raise dividends and share prices over everything else, INCLUDING the very future of the company. hell, even evan has called it right on this related to the MAX: short-term profit ruled the day. because boeing spent many, many years trying to maximize current profits and share prices, they got caught with their pants around their ankles while airbus innovated. another example i just read about reecently is how exxon, once one of the largest companies on the planet, was removed from the dow jones partially as a result of things like its board working to maximize dividends over investing in future tech. this caused the market to shit on its shares to the point where it no longer qualified to be listed on the dow. good job boys!

your last point: no, but i spend a lot of time reading about any new drug someone proposes to prescribe me and have several times refused to take them. no i don't check airplanes, but i do rap the fuselage on the right side of the entry door twice before boarding.

[TeeVee]

Absolutely. Which is why we haven’t done any such thing. Emergency Use Authorization is a process of evaluation, not a process of “blind trust”. Although it is attenuated, it is still rigorous. And once approval is given, the evaluation continues. If concerns arise, the authorization is suspended. It is vigilant. There is a healthy amount of distrust.

But you know this. Are phrases like ‘blind trust’ just things lawyers throw in to win arguments? Can you stop being one long enough to have an honest discussion about the facts?

you toss words around like rigorous as if you are personally involved. more likely, some moron from the CDC or FDA used that term once upon a time and you bought it--hook, line and sinker.

time will tell all. it always does.

what "facts" would you like to have an honest discussion about? the FACT that the FDa doesn't want to release pfizer's docs? what? to protect their investment? yeah, that is certainly more important than public health. dont get me wrong, i respect IP rights, but the coincidence here is just way to convenient.

healthy amount of distrust? where? by whom? our govt sunk 10's of billions of dollars into these shots before they were "proven." do you think it's possible that the FDA pulled a FAA in approving and kinda looking the other way? after all, it woulda been really embarrassing to have one branch of govt essentially contradict another...

[Gabriel]

how corporate boards act to raise dividends and share prices over everything else, INCLUDING the very future of the company.

That is unfortunately true sometimes, and I would add over the the future value of their shares too. Boeing was a good example. It costed billions to Boeing and their shareholders, but some made a lot of money by bailing out early and re-buying when it was at the bottom of the pit, or by bailing lout with a golden parachute. But most shareholders lost a lot of money with Boeing's tricks.

your last point: no, but i spend a lot of time reading about any new drug someone proposes to prescribe me and have several times refused to take them.

And you still got the COVID vaccine shot.

no i don't check airplanes, but i do rap the fuselage on the right side of the entry door twice before boarding.

That will make a lot of difference when the plane is overspeeding into the ground in flames

[Evan]

you toss words around like rigorous as if you are personally involved. more likely, some moron from the CDC or FDA used that term once upon a time and you bought it--hook, line and sinker.

time will tell all. it always does.

It already did. 5.5 billion vaccines over a year and a half. mRNA has been exceptionally effective against severe disease. And exceptionally safe. The tale is told TeeVee.

healthy amount of distrust? where? by whom?

By regulating bodies across the world; the ones that required a full spectrum of human trials; the ones that suspended the Astra Zeneca and J&J vaccines when doubts arose; the ones that are comprised of scientists who are not diabolical. I think maybe you watch to much... T... V...

[TeeVee]

It already did. 5.5 billion vaccines over a year and a half. mRNA has been exceptionally effective against severe disease. And exceptionally safe. The tale is told TeeVee.



By regulating bodies across the world; the ones that required a full spectrum of human trials; the ones that suspended the Astra Zeneca and J&J vaccines when doubts arose; the ones that are comprised of scientists who are not diabolical. I think maybe you watch to much... T... V...

oh so you ADMIT that the true experiment was testing it on the public after it was "approved" as safe. that is EXACTLY my point. jesus you are obtuse.

no, i'll bet that when pfizer's dirty laundry is put out to air, they are gonna have to answer a lot of questions, will have 7 armies of lawyers running interference, and the whole thing will be called political. i bet they cut plenty of corners and conveniently left out information in their applications or buried it nice and deep where it wouldnt be found

[TeeVee]

also, what has been doled out to date are NOT vaccines in the traditional sense (i.e., one or two shots and you're good for basically your life). it's a temporary SHOT, like the flu shot (which has a miserable protection rate).... so let's call spades spades.

[BoeingBobby]

Just curious, is this ever going back to an aviation safety forum? Asking for a friend.

[3WE]

Just curious, is this ever going back to an aviation safety forum? Asking for a friend.

Are you willing to discuss the issue of takeoff roll screw ups, which seem to occur from time to time...in that gray area of 'extremely rare', but conversely 'known and predictable'?