see page 3, paragraph 11: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390195/1/public-healt...
- Aaron Kheriarty is no longer associated with UC Irvine after refusing their vaccine mandate (this changed between the filing and now) and tweets links to The American Conservative. https://twitter.com/akheriaty
- Harvey Risch published an opinion piece in favor of hydroxycholoroquine in the American Journal of Epidemiology which attracted opposition from many other scientists as inappropriate/unscientific (not simply wrong yet within the bounds of good-faith scientific inquiry) and a response from that journal. https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/190/4/491/5898696
- Peter McCullough appeared on an episode of Joe Rogan where even Joe Rogan correctly identified that his claims were implausible. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29655002
I got bored after the first page, I can look further....
I am simply responding to the comment above that asks, who are the people who are requesting the information, and what is their agenda. That is also a very important thing to know for a vibrant public discourse.
I just can't help but think that pfizer did this on purpose - not making redacted versions of their data, knowing it would take the FDA forever to do that if it ever got FOIA'd.
Why do we care about this? Does he also have bad taste in summer outfits?
> which attracted opposition from many other scientists as inappropriate/unscientific (not simply wrong yet within the bounds of good-faith scientific inquiry)
That is incorrect. The counter arguments were narrow and about statistical methods, specifically risk ratio usage and confounders. Neither side appeared out of bounds in this debate.
> Peter McCullough appeared on an episode of Joe Rogan where even Joe Rogan correctly identified that his claims were implausible.
Your evidence here is an HN thread which restates the issue. Double infections are exceedingly rare (currently): https://nypost.com/2022/01/03/israel-reports-rare-double-inf...
Attack facts and claims, not people.
Getting covid a second time after having previously had it (which is what McCullough erroneously claimed was near impossible) is in fact increasingly common.
> Cases of reinfection with COVID-19 have been reported, but remain rare .
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/reinfe...
If he merely claimed they were rare, that would not discredit him.
Very rare and impossible are nearly equivalent wrt policies that broadly and significantly impact personal health and liberty.
Pandemics are very rare. Flying unicorns shooting Ebola out of their horns are impossible.
Are you upset because I hold that view based on observable evidence? Like, genuinely, I'm confused why you're so invested in arguing against me. What's the thing I said that you disagree with? Are you saying that the doctor is a reliable source of medical information despite his entirely unsubstantiated pronouncement that there was no possible way Joe Rogan's friend could have gotten covid twice, and one of those cases must have been influenza or something?
Attack facts and claims, not people.
Of course if you only look at the "variants of concern" that the media talks about you basically have to wait years until you have like 4 or 5 variants that went all around the world to see how common it is for it to mutate in a way that can reinfect, but considering Delta reinfections where common and now Omicron is also reinfecting everyone, I would just not loose any more time listening to McCullough. Note he says its _impossible_, not rare or weird or strange, _impossible_. He actually called bullshit on Rogan because Rogan said his friend got it twice because he got Delta and the first variant.
That is an amazing fact if true and you should alert the CDC immediately with your evidence.
I consider that "a lot" special when compared to McCulloughs prediction of 0.0% because reinfection was impossible.
Nothing suggests these folks are acting in good faith. They showed no willingness to bound an obviously over-scoped request. It is sad the judge didn't see this for what it is.
They are abusing the process to make the FDA and Pfizer look bad by requesting an absurd number of things and not scoping out things that they obviously are not entitle to. Pfizer, like it or not is entitled to have their trade secrets protected. Like it or not, Pfizer and teh FDA have a responsibility to protect the private healthcare information of patients who participated. That takes time. If I was a vaccine trial participant I would be suing the pants off these loons.
I feel like I'm living in crazy town...go read the emails that these loons attached of their own email conversation with the FDA. one person (the FDA rep) is trying to have a serious and productive conversation, the guy from PCP (or whatever) wants to stand on a street corner and shout. They attached this in support of their own lawsuit
Extraordinary claims require at least some effort. It isn't the job of everyone to engage and disprove everything stupid people say...at some point saying 'this dude is a loon' is a sufficient counter to 'why won't you debate me'. The preponderance of evidence, including engagement with things like the American Conservative and Joe Rogan as a source of healthcare information meaningfully suggest against taking these people seriously and that's all that is necessary.
[0] https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/032-Appendix-in...
what information...exactly what information?
if I file a FOIA request for the presidents tax return and it gets denied for a legal exemption is that the government hiding something?
There is a FOIA process, there are things that are exempt from disclosure - that is part of the law as well.
FDA follows a process, outlined here: https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/023-FDA-Appendi... (page 5+)
In reality, the plaintiffs are the ones slowing the process of releasing this information down by being unreasonable. it means FDA is reviewing and denying OBVIOUSLY privileged or exempt documents that the group only asked for to then waive about the number of documents that the FDA 'wOuLdN't DiScLoSe'.
If you are playing quantitative games with FOIA request document numbers you are acting in bad faith. When you are trying to scope as many exempt documents as possible into your request so you can later use that number to push your narrative, you are acting in bad faith. Because when you aren't interested in the content of the documents, nothing you are doing has anything to do with serious efforts at transparency.
The process is defined by the Freedom of Information Act itself and not the Department of Health and Human Services. Here is the act https://www.justice.gov/oip/freedom-information-act-5-usc-55... and by law there only 9 exemption categories that allow a US agency to withhold information. They are: 1. classified information for national defense or foreign policy 2. internal personnel rules and practices 3. information that is exempt under other laws 4. trade secrets and confidential business information 5. inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters that are protected by legal privileges 6. personnel and medical files 7. law enforcement records or information 8. information concerning bank supervision 9. geological and geophysical information
You're right, we're talking about random private citizens medical information, which falls under 6. That's what the majority of the pages requested are, and why it'll take so long to redact them: they're mostly clinical notes about people like you and me. The relevant information that won't be redacted is already publicly accessible.
Or perhaps they’ll be “anonymized” which is tech’s go to term for running roughshod over our secrecy.
Honestly this discussion is insane, this entire discussion presumes a bunch of people selling snake oil are more credible than the people trying to make sure drugs are safe. The “well the fda screws up sometimes” is only useful to that argument if you have already picked the narrative you want. Otherwise it’s like saying I’d rather go to see with a cannibal I have never met than my younger brother because he bit me once when we were kids.
Their litigation is aggressive, there's no doubt there. But does that mean the information isn't any less important? Back when the pandemic started, a lot of FOIA nerds were hesitant to submit FOIAs because of the issues around quarantine, WFH etc. At the end though, transparency is such a fundamentally important part of our understanding of our own governance that it's important that we don't hold back on important issues like this.
It doesn't even really matter too much if the organization won't use the docs themselves. Their litigation is making it available to the public. If they're not going to look through them, someone will.
to flip what you are saying around, I believe that every government record should be born publicly available unless explicitly rendered secret (under review, of course). That is, I shouldnt have to file a FOIA, the agency should file a “Request for Secrecy”
Otherwise everything is automatically an openly available record.
You can feign ignorance here but the answer is obvious. Anti-vax talking points are far more common in conservative media.
> My guess is it's a group of charlatans looking to sell their own COVID cures
Cant blame him though. It is a great magazine.
If you are interested in anti-trump conservative thought, The Bulwark is another good source.
Take their editor Dreher. Dreher is a very social conservative, and economically populist. So is he a Trumpist? He despises Trump specifically for his character shortcomings and has no patience for someone who cant see Trump do any bad. Dreher also has complete intolerance for incivility towards his opponents.
Also, I havent found any other publication explain the damage that cars have caused America than their segment “The new Urbs”. Only Ivan Illich’s quip that cars average 5mph come close to the poignancy.
For TAC the car’s sins aren't CO2 emissions. The sin of the car is that it ripped our cities apart. For TAC, the electric car isn't the solution but a mere bandaid.
They are unabashedly anti-war and anti-interventionist in a manner that Mark Twain, or Smedley Butler would be were they alive (ie many of them, like Twain and Butler, made the mistake of believing the establishment narrative on foreign intervention and are furiously making amends).
Finally, TAC is a gateway to sober conservative intelligentsia, which exists, is very broad and very rich. How many have heard of Roger Scruton compare to Hannity?
EDIT:
Some criticism is in order.
They appear to be a talent incubator, a lot of their columnists are recent grads. They’re great, but they don't last long and I miss some of the old guys (especially their urbanism guy)
They are increasingly a christian focused magazine, which is fine by me, but does limit their palpability for HN readers. That being said, i suspect believers of any faith would be more comfortable reading TAC than NYT (in my experience religious people are more comfortable with people of other faith than with secularism - but its a long and off topic point)
Finally, about the ME coverage. Its simple, its not in the US interest or our problem. Agreed. However their stance on Israel is softer than it was but harsher than mainstream media. Everyone has a problem with men in the middle.
As someone who leads liberal, but feels conservatives also have many good points, in addition to serving as the necessary counter-argument that strengthens everyone in a discourse, it's been hard to find sources in the Trump era that advance traditional conservative values in good faith.
That’s not to say you’ll like it. But they’re fair and honest about what they believe (no “dog whistles” or whatever)
What irks me more is when people can't / won't enunciate their core beliefs as part of an argument.
If you think lower taxes create greater economic growth and freedom, then mention that! If you think higher taxes create greater economic growth and freedom, then mention that! But don't dance around the issue with five pages of rhetorical devices and examples, and never mention why you're advocating a position... as your core belief.
Read a couple articles last night, and enjoyed them. (Well balanced) food for thought.
(Declan, Im looking at you. You’re too intelligent to act like a shock jock)