My brother got a respiratory infection following the second Moderna shot, died weeks later. That was July 2021.
-
77
-
Well thats not what happened wrote:
statfool wrote:
It is not a "well designed study".
To have a well designed study, you have to randomly assign treatment. Otherwise, even if you try to "match risk factors", usually the more at-risk people are the ones who chose to get treatment. And they have more bad outcomes, as expected.
Not sure why you’re saying it’s not well designed. The population consisted of over 1700 healthcare workers during the pandemic. What treatment are you referring to. This study addressed the rate of flu like illnesses after COVID vaccination and after flu vaccination. The conclusion was that more SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations are associated with a higher risk of influenza-like respiratory illness and workdays lost.
The design is objectively inadequate to establish causation. Voluntary surveys such as this one are better than anecdote but inferior to virtually any other study design. Google it if you want to know why.
Furthermore, the association with influenza-like illness in this data set did not hold up when they adjusted for age and comorbitities. You cant compare outcomes between a 20 year old who had 2 doses of vaccine to an 80 year old with 3 doses.
51 -
RobeTRT Kennedy is making it difficult to get the covid vaccine. Of course he has no problem roiding up like the Rock.
34 -
Disgruntleddoc wrote:
Well thats not what happened wrote:
Not sure why you’re saying it’s not well designed. The population consisted of over 1700 healthcare workers during the pandemic. What treatment are you referring to. This study addressed the rate of flu like illnesses after COVID vaccination and after flu vaccination. The conclusion was that more SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations are associated with a higher risk of influenza-like respiratory illness and workdays lost.
The design is objectively inadequate to establish causation. Voluntary surveys such as this one are better than anecdote but inferior to virtually any other study design. Google it if you want to know why.
Furthermore, the association with influenza-like illness in this data set did not hold up when they adjusted for age and comorbitities. You cant compare outcomes between a 20 year old who had 2 doses of vaccine to an 80 year old with 3 doses.
The mental gymnastics Covid vaccine enthusiasts have to go through. 🤦♂️
37 -
It's okay to not understand how scientific studies work and their strengths and weaknesses. But ignorance doesn't change reality.
72 -
Sonnys wrote:
How much does this Alex guy make off you fools. Just follow the money with these chemtrailers, flat earthers, and antivaxxers, illuminati, etc. etc.
Compared to what big pharma makes off you? Nothing.
22 -
I remember when Berenson frantically pivoted from “COVID is fake” to “the vaccines are harmful” when he realized he was wrong.
Of course the same idiots still give him money despite being wrong on both counts.42 -
Disgruntleddoc wrote:
Well thats not what happened wrote:
Not sure why you’re saying it’s not well designed. The population consisted of over 1700 healthcare workers during the pandemic. What treatment are you referring to. This study addressed the rate of flu like illnesses after COVID vaccination and after flu vaccination. The conclusion was that more SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations are associated with a higher risk of influenza-like respiratory illness and workdays lost.
The design is objectively inadequate to establish causation. Voluntary surveys such as this one are better than anecdote but inferior to virtually any other study design. Google it if you want to know why.
Furthermore, the association with influenza-like illness in this data set did not hold up when they adjusted for age and comorbitities. You cant compare outcomes between a 20 year old who had 2 doses of vaccine to an 80 year old with 3 doses.
Well designed trials and observation studies have repeatedly showed the vaccine protects against severe disease.
Here’s poorly controlled observational study, with terrible adjustment for key confounders, that conflicts with all the higher quality studies.
This must be the right one
42 -
Berenson wrote:
I remember when Berenson frantically pivoted from “COVID is fake” to “the vaccines are harmful” when he realized he was wrong.
Of course the same idiots still give him money despite being wrong on both counts.
Thank You, Secretary Kennedy.
**************
Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) discussed how to downplay concerns about COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and avoid “too precise” comparisons between the benefits of the jab and natural immunity, according to explosive emails obtained by The Post Tuesday.
The messages reveal agency leaders frequently met to discuss public relations strategies that failed to communicate full information about the safety and efficacy of vaccines combatting SARS-CoV-2.
In a Sept. 22, 2023, email, members of the agency’s COVID Coordination Unit brainstormed how to make Americans “more easily visualize their relative risk of getting very sick” based on whether they were vaccinated or used other protective measures.
16 -
Berenson wrote:
I remember when Berenson frantically pivoted from “COVID is fake” to “the vaccines are harmful” when he realized he was wrong.
Of course the same idiots still give him money despite being wrong on both counts.
So, how many boosters have you had? lol
16 -
The drug trials for the mRNA vaccines and the booster are much less scientifically rigorous than this study. Pfizer unblinded the placebo group in the original COVID vaccine trial. The bosster shots were not even RCT tested on humans. Only 8 mice were used.
Observational studies from Cleveland and a recent study published in Nature provide conclusive evidence that a dose dependent inverse relationship between the covid vax and efficacy exists. Each additional shot increases one's chance of respiratory illness. The study in Nature found a positive correlation between the number of COVID-19 vax jabs and subsequent sick day absenteeism among study participants.
The case is closed. The COVID vax is a failure. While my comment focuses on efficacy there's also confirmed data establishing that these mRNA vaccines cause heart related tissue damage in young males.
17 -
reflekteve wrote:
The drug trials for the mRNA vaccines and the booster are much less scientifically rigorous than this study. Pfizer unblinded the placebo group in the original COVID vaccine trial. The bosster shots were not even RCT tested on humans. Only 8 mice were used.
Observational studies from Cleveland and a recent study published in Nature provide conclusive evidence that a dose dependent inverse relationship between the covid vax and efficacy exists. Each additional shot increases one's chance of respiratory illness. The study in Nature found a positive correlation between the number of COVID-19 vax jabs and subsequent sick day absenteeism among study participants.
The case is closed. The COVID vax is a failure. While my comment focuses on efficacy there's also confirmed data establishing that these mRNA vaccines cause heart related tissue damage in young males.
Even if the Pfizer phase 3 RCT was unblinded (which it wasn't) it would still be of higher quality than this survey.
A third dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine (booster) was in fact studied in humans.The observational study you are referring to suggesting inverse vaccine efficacy is the one in the title of this thread and has significant flaws pointed out earlier.
32 -
Berenson wrote:
Disgruntleddoc wrote:
The design is objectively inadequate to establish causation. Voluntary surveys such as this one are better than anecdote but inferior to virtually any other study design. Google it if you want to know why.
Furthermore, the association with influenza-like illness in this data set did not hold up when they adjusted for age and comorbitities. You cant compare outcomes between a 20 year old who had 2 doses of vaccine to an 80 year old with 3 doses.
Well designed trials and observation studies have repeatedly showed the vaccine protects against severe disease.
Here’s poorly controlled observational study, with terrible adjustment for key confounders, that conflicts with all the higher quality studies.
This must be the right one
According to the 2024 Cleveland Clinic study the COVID mRNA vaccines actually have [negative] efficacy. The more doses the more likely the person was to develop COVID infection.
Snip:
"Risk of COVID-19 was lower among those previously infected with an XBB or more recent lineage and increased with the number of vaccine doses previously received."
That's study has been memoryholed and buried by legacy media. The left-wing "fact check" organizations worked aggressively to discredit the findings and implications. The authors of the Cleveland Clinic study were also quite mealy mouthed. They noted that the study showed that the vaccine reduced infection by 30% prior to JN.1 variant dominance. Problem is JN.1 became dominate shortly after the 2023/24 booster was released. By December 2023, well before most people even received the booster, JN.1 became the dominate strain of COVID-19. This rendered the booster completely ineffective. In fact, the non-vaxxed cohort in the study were less likely to be infected by COVID-19.
Even under the most narrowly slanted view of the 2023/24 COVID booster shot it only provided 30% protection for the short time window between September and December 2023 and 0, or even negative protection thereafter.
Big Pharma is evil and greedy. I don't know why people suddenly forgot this common widely agreed on truth among people across the political spectrum. But leftists would rather deny reality than concede that Trumpers were right about the vax.
33 -
reflekteve wrote:
The drug trials for the mRNA vaccines and the booster are much less scientifically rigorous than this study. Pfizer unblinded the placebo group in the original COVID vaccine trial. The bosster shots were not even RCT tested on humans. Only 8 mice were used.
Observational studies from Cleveland and a recent study published in Nature provide conclusive evidence that a dose dependent inverse relationship between the covid vax and efficacy exists. Each additional shot increases one's chance of respiratory illness. The study in Nature found a positive correlation between the number of COVID-19 vax jabs and subsequent sick day absenteeism among study participants.
The case is closed. The COVID vax is a failure. While my comment focuses on efficacy there's also confirmed data establishing that these mRNA vaccines cause heart related tissue damage in young males.
Those observational studies all come from the same guy in Cleveland who uses his one confounded dataset to make the same claim over and over.
There’s a reason nobody else can replicate it.
Myocariditis is more dangerous from COVID.Your first point has already been refuted. Observational studies have shown the boosters work exactly as expected.53 -
reflekteve wrote:
Berenson wrote:
Well designed trials and observation studies have repeatedly showed the vaccine protects against severe disease.
Here’s poorly controlled observational study, with terrible adjustment for key confounders, that conflicts with all the higher quality studies.
This must be the right one
According to the 2024 Cleveland Clinic study the COVID mRNA vaccines actually have [negative] efficacy. The more doses the more likely the person was to develop COVID infection.
Snip:
"Risk of COVID-19 was lower among those previously infected with an XBB or more recent lineage and increased with the number of vaccine doses previously received."
That's study has been memoryholed and buried by legacy media. The left-wing "fact check" organizations worked aggressively to discredit the findings and implications. The authors of the Cleveland Clinic study were also quite mealy mouthed. They noted that the study showed that the vaccine reduced infection by 30% prior to JN.1 variant dominance. Problem is JN.1 became dominate shortly after the 2023/24 booster was released. By December 2023, well before most people even received the booster, JN.1 became the dominate strain of COVID-19. This rendered the booster completely ineffective. In fact, the non-vaxxed cohort in the study were less likely to be infected by COVID-19.
Even under the most narrowly slanted view of the 2023/24 COVID booster shot it only provided 30% protection for the short time window between September and December 2023 and 0, or even negative protection thereafter.
Big Pharma is evil and greedy. I don't know why people suddenly forgot this common widely agreed on truth among people across the political spectrum. But leftists would rather deny reality than concede that Trumpers were right about the vax.
As I said. This is the only group to ever show this. Countless studies have looked at health records and found the opposite effect.
Nobody else can replicate it and higher quality trials point in the opposite direction
It’s just one dude with a bad dataset and an axe to grind. Embarrassing evaluation of evidence.
53 -
reflekteve wrote:
But leftists would rather deny reality than concede that Trumpers were right about the vax.
Politicization of the COVID vaccines and science in general is a huge issue. Perhaps a moment of introspection is warranted as you assume that those who disagree with your COVID opinions are leftists and assume they are convinced by political ideology rather than evidence.
42 -
antivaxxers lose again wrote:
Myocariditis is more dangerous from COVID.Your first point has already been refuted. Observational studies have shown the boosters work exactly as expected.Except the "vaccine" doesn't prevent getting or spreading COVID and never did. So people who got the jab get myocarditis risk from both the jab and the inevitable case of COVID that they got anyway.
52 -
Newname wrote:
Sure Jan wrote:
This study had an n of 46 million.
Huh?
How is a jab meant to protect against a corona virus preventing strokes and heart attacks? A jab that we know causes heart problems?
More Big Pharma BS
The jab also cause accumulation of spike nano protein in the clitoris and vulva of girls young and old and cause susceptible ones to be remotely raped by electromagnetic frequencies put out of CIA organisation. These frequencies have been weaponised against women and they sure as hell are done by men. Only men can do this to women.
23 -
DisgruntledDoc wrote:
reflekteve wrote:
But leftists would rather deny reality than concede that Trumpers were right about the vax.
Politicization of the COVID vaccines and science in general is a huge issue. Perhaps a moment of introspection is warranted as you assume that those who disagree with your COVID opinions are leftists and assume they are convinced by political ideology rather than evidence.
Its not an assumption. Its an observation of reality. We saw it happen. Its documented. At every turn and on every issue the left politicized it as a weapon against Trump. They became completely and utterly deranged over Trump. Still very much are.
03
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.