Official Covid Vaccine thread

Don't vax me broh wrote:

fisky wrote:

For those who wonder why some of us were skeptical of the CDC/WHO from the beginnings of the pandemic, look at this.

- - - -

...Among patients over age 65 who were vented, the mortality rate was 97.2%

"The recommendation to place COVID patients on mechanical ventilation as a first-line response came from the World Health Organization, which allegedly based its guidance on experiences and recommendations from doctors in China. But venting COVID patients wasn’t recommended because it increased survival. It was to protect health care workers by isolating the virus inside the vent machine."

- - - -

It was obvious from the beginning that the CDC/WHO were pathetically incompetent. Instead of testing alternatives, they just TOOK THE WORD OF CHINA that ventilation was the way to go. How is that "follow the science?!" It's purely anecdotal. As a results, 74% of 18-64 ventilated in NYC died!

Scientists should have been field testing or even challenge testing treatments that were found to be working in some locations... HCQ or IVM and zinc, vitamin D, etc. Instead, the CDC stayed with the ventilation protocol even when it has been shown not to work effectively.

Speaking only for myself, when I saw the woeful incompetence of the CDC and WHO, I wasn't going to take their advice on a vaccine that was tested on average for only two months and 1 of 8 participants in the clinical trial were "lost" to follow-up after the first vaccine dose. How incompetent to you have to be to lose 1 in 8 adults when you have all their contact information? I personally believe that some of these 1 in 8 had adverse effects and refused to come back. I believe that some of those 1 in 8 were "lost" on purpose when they had adverse events. One of these 1 in 8 was a South American whistleblower who has been trying to get visibility for his adverse events.

I know that provaxxers will discount all of this. So be it. I'm sharing my rationale to take a different approach. You do you and best of luck for no health issues in the future.

(This article will only be available for a couple of days and then it will be deleted so if you're interested, don't delay in reading it."

Link:articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/ar...

Can't blame China. Can't blame the WHO. Individual doctors, the guys wearing the white coats with the fancy paper on the wall, are responsible. They are the ones that ordered patients to be ventilated. They are the ones that prescribed Remdesivir. And they kept doing it months after it was obvious that these two treatments were killing people. We're all call morons and conspiracy nuts if we don't follow these same doctors' advice on all other medical matters. You can't only be the expert responsible when the answers are easy.

As has been said here before, doctors are great at rote memorization but completely lacking in common sense... and apparently are more concerned about being accepted (and not being canceled) for going against the crazy recommendations coming from hospital administrators, the CDC, Fauci, etc. than they are about being ethical. An awful lots of unethical stuff went on by people that are supposed to have taken an oath to be better.

fisky wrote:

Harambe wrote:

Obesity management has been a cornerstone of public health since… forever?

mindless babbling from the antivaxxers

Fauci had a bully pulpit every day for nearly two years. Every day, he'd repeat his mantra, " Social distance and wear a mask." Once the vaccine came out, he'd say, "social distance, wear a mask, and get vaccinated." He did that every day in front nation-wide audiences... every. single. day.

Cite one time where he added this phrase... "and if you're overweight or obese, lose weight."

He could have said, "We know that being overweight or obese increases risk so one thing people could be doing is taking steps to lose weight if they are overweight or obese." HE NEVER SAID THAT. HE. NEVER. SAID. THAT.

He could have done it every day. In fact, the only time I heard him mention weight, it was almost making an excuse for people being overweight.

Harambe wrote:

fisky wrote:

You want us to believe that after signing up for a chance to get a vaccine against the great pandemic in modern history, after undergoing a screening process, after waiting to get the results of the screening process, after waiting to actually get the first dose of the vaccine, and after getting this first dose that 1 in 8 participants were "lost" to ALL followup contact. Not even follow-up phone calls were documented. Do you honestly want us to believe that with BILLIONS of dollars on the line for vaccine approval, that Pfizer would simply allow their participating clinics to say, "Oh well, they didn't come back and we sent them an email. They must be lost."

yes, that’s how trials work

especially for prophylactic trials. It’s one thing if you have refractory stage III cancer and are in a trial for a potential cure. It’s another if you’re a healthy person living life in a pandemic who misses a follow up appointment.

Anyway, there have been countless followup studies on safety asking the question in many ways and there have been no strong safety signals.

Well, there was one: J&J clotting. Who discovered it? The FDA. Not antivaxx bloggers. Shocking.

Harambe wrote:

fisky wrote:

You want us to believe that after signing up for a chance to get a vaccine against the great pandemic in modern history, after undergoing a screening process, after waiting to get the results of the screening process, after waiting to actually get the first dose of the vaccine, and after getting this first dose that 1 in 8 participants were "lost" to ALL followup contact. Not even follow-up phone calls were documented. Do you honestly want us to believe that with BILLIONS of dollars on the line for vaccine approval, that Pfizer would simply allow their participating clinics to say, "Oh well, they didn't come back and we sent them an email. They must be lost."

yes, that’s how trials work

especially for prophylactic trials. It’s one thing if you have refractory stage III cancer and are in a trial for a potential cure. It’s another if you’re a healthy person living life in a pandemic who misses a follow up appointment.

Anyway, there have been countless followup studies on safety asking the question in many ways and there have been no strong safety signals.

Well, there was one: J&J clotting. Who discovered it? The FDA. Not antivaxx bloggers. Shocking.

2600 bro wrote:

fisky wrote:

Fauci had a bully pulpit every day for nearly two years. Every day, he'd repeat his mantra, " Social distance and wear a mask." Once the vaccine came out, he'd say, "social distance, wear a mask, and get vaccinated." He did that every day in front nation-wide audiences... every. single. day.

Cite one time where he added this phrase... "and if you're overweight or obese, lose weight."

He could have said, "We know that being overweight or obese increases risk so one thing people could be doing is taking steps to lose weight if they are overweight or obese." HE NEVER SAID THAT. HE. NEVER. SAID. THAT.

He could have done it every day. In fact, the only time I heard him mention weight, it was almost making an excuse for people being overweight.

Dude… we don’t care. Saying that wouldn’t change anything. Telling people to lose weight does NOTHING we’ve known this for a long time.

fisky wrote:

Harambe wrote:

yes, that’s how trials work

especially for prophylactic trials. It’s one thing if you have refractory stage III cancer and are in a trial for a potential cure. It’s another if you’re a healthy person living life in a pandemic who misses a follow up appointment.

Anyway, there have been countless followup studies on safety asking the question in many ways and there have been no strong safety signals.

Well, there was one: J&J clotting. Who discovered it? The FDA. Not antivaxx bloggers. Shocking.

If that's how it works, then I assume that clinics were told NOT to aggressively follow-up when subjects were lost because the subjects that did not show up for their 2nd shot were more likely to have adverse event. In that case, just write them off as lost and have no follow-up to determine WHY the dropped out.

Another suspicious anomaly was the number of lost subjects in the vaccinated and the control cohort were almost exactly the same. We're talking 6,000+ subjects lost and the control and vaccinated number lost were with only a dozen or so of each other. To me, that looks manipulated. I would have expected it to be different by at least several dozen... perhaps a hundred or so. That's especially true of this vaccine, which had a very high rate of sore arm and 24-hour flu symptoms. You'd expect more dropouts out of the vaccine cohort, but the numbers were very close... I'd have to look it up, but IIRC, the difference between the two cohorts was around 15-20. I could be wrong on that. It's been a couple of years since I looked at the data.

fisky wrote:

Harambe wrote:

yes, that’s how trials work

especially for prophylactic trials. It’s one thing if you have refractory stage III cancer and are in a trial for a potential cure. It’s another if you’re a healthy person living life in a pandemic who misses a follow up appointment.

Anyway, there have been countless followup studies on safety asking the question in many ways and there have been no strong safety signals.

Well, there was one: J&J clotting. Who discovered it? The FDA. Not antivaxx bloggers. Shocking.

If that's how it works, then I assume that clinics were told NOT to aggressively follow-up when subjects were lost because the subjects that did not show up for their 2nd shot were more likely to have adverse event. In that case, just write them off as lost and have no follow-up to determine WHY they dropped out.

Another suspicious anomaly was the number of lost subjects in the vaccinated and the control cohort were almost exactly the same. We're talking 6,000+ subjects lost and the control and vaccinated number lost were with only a dozen or so of each other. To me, that looks manipulated. I would have expected it to be different by at least several dozen... perhaps a hundred or so. That's especially true of this vaccine, which had a very high rate of sore arm and 24-hour flu symptoms. You'd expect more dropouts out of the vaccine cohort, but the numbers were very close... I'd have to look it up, but IIRC, the difference between the two cohorts was around 15-20. I could be wrong on that. It's been a couple of years since I looked at the data.

fisky wrote:

Harambe wrote:

yes, that’s how trials work

especially for prophylactic trials. It’s one thing if you have refractory stage III cancer and are in a trial for a potential cure. It’s another if you’re a healthy person living life in a pandemic who misses a follow up appointment.

Anyway, there have been countless followup studies on safety asking the question in many ways and there have been no strong safety signals.

Well, there was one: J&J clotting. Who discovered it? The FDA. Not antivaxx bloggers. Shocking.

If that's how it works, then I assume that clinics were told NOT to aggressively follow-up when subjects were lost because the subjects that did not show up for their 2nd shot were more likely to have adverse event. In that case, just write them off as lost and have no follow-up to determine WHY they dropped out.

Another suspicious anomaly was the number of lost subjects in the vaccinated and the control cohort were almost exactly the same. We're talking 6,000+ subjects lost and the control and vaccinated number lost were with only a dozen or so of each other. To me, that looks manipulated. I would have expected it to be different by at least several dozen... perhaps a hundred or so. That's especially true of this vaccine, which had a very high rate of sore arm and 24-hour flu symptoms. You'd expect more dropouts out of the vaccine cohort, but the numbers were very close... I'd have to look it up, but IIRC, the difference between the two cohorts was around 15-20. I could be wrong on that. It's been a couple of years since I looked at the data.

Don't vax me broh wrote:

fisky wrote:

If that's how it works, then I assume that clinics were told NOT to aggressively follow-up when subjects were lost because the subjects that did not show up for their 2nd shot were more likely to have adverse event. In that case, just write them off as lost and have no follow-up to determine WHY they dropped out.

Another suspicious anomaly was the number of lost subjects in the vaccinated and the control cohort were almost exactly the same. We're talking 6,000+ subjects lost and the control and vaccinated number lost were with only a dozen or so of each other. To me, that looks manipulated. I would have expected it to be different by at least several dozen... perhaps a hundred or so. That's especially true of this vaccine, which had a very high rate of sore arm and 24-hour flu symptoms. You'd expect more dropouts out of the vaccine cohort, but the numbers were very close... I'd have to look it up, but IIRC, the difference between the two cohorts was around 15-20. I could be wrong on that. It's been a couple of years since I looked at the data.

One doesn't have to have a biology PhD to understand human nature. lol.

Link:www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/revolutio...

Some juice parts...

Believe it or not, there are dozens of possible forms of misdirection that are possible when presenting the results of a clinical trial. They could fill an entire book.

First and most important is the trick of missingness. The best way to make data look better is to take out data that you do not like or not bother to collect it at all. If the presentation does not account for missing data, all sorts of mischief are possible.

Let us say that you have randomized 600 patients in a trial. According to the intention-to-treat principle that governs the integrity of clinical trials, you need to show data on 600 patients. But often, investigators will show you data on 550 patients, having taken 50 patients out of the analysis.

Clinical investigators can provide all sorts of reasons why the 50 patients are missing. They can say that the patients never returned for follow-up, or that they violated the protocol and were removed from the analysis. Investigators can get very creative in devising reasons that seem credible but are biased. They can even claim that the missingness does not matter if it affects both treatment groups equally, even though that is certainly not true.

The truth: Missingness is never random, and if it is large enough, it is always a source of bias.

Of course, anyone that invests in biotech understands this.

Don\'t vax me broh wrote:

Don't vax me broh wrote:

One doesn't have to have a biology PhD to understand human nature. lol.

Link:www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/revolutio...

Some juice parts...

Believe it or not, there are dozens of possible forms of misdirection that are possible when presenting the results of a clinical trial. They could fill an entire book.

First and most important is the trick of missingness. The best way to make data look better is to take out data that you do not like or not bother to collect it at all. If the presentation does not account for missing data, all sorts of mischief are possible.

Let us say that you have randomized 600 patients in a trial. According to the intention-to-treat principle that governs the integrity of clinical trials, you need to show data on 600 patients. But often, investigators will show you data on 550 patients, having taken 50 patients out of the analysis.

Clinical investigators can provide all sorts of reasons why the 50 patients are missing. They can say that the patients never returned for follow-up, or that they violated the protocol and were removed from the analysis. Investigators can get very creative in devising reasons that seem credible but are biased. They can even claim that the missingness does not matter if it affects both treatment groups equally, even though that is certainly not true.

The truth: Missingness is never random, and if it is large enough, it is always a source of bias.

Of course, anyone that invests in biotech understands this.

Are the down votes for me or the Principle Investigator that wrote this article?

fisky wrote:

Harambe wrote:

yes, that’s how trials work

especially for prophylactic trials. It’s one thing if you have refractory stage III cancer and are in a trial for a potential cure. It’s another if you’re a healthy person living life in a pandemic who misses a follow up appointment.

Anyway, there have been countless followup studies on safety asking the question in many ways and there have been no strong safety signals.

Well, there was one: J&J clotting. Who discovered it? The FDA. Not antivaxx bloggers. Shocking.

If that's how it works, then I assume that clinics were told NOT to aggressively follow-up when subjects were lost because the subjects that did not show up for their 2nd shot were more likely to have adverse event. In that case, just write them off as lost and have no follow-up to determine WHY they dropped out.

Another suspicious anomaly was the number of lost subjects in the vaccinated and the control cohort were almost exactly the same. We're talking 6,000+ subjects lost and the control and vaccinated number lost were with only a dozen or so of each other. To me, that looks manipulated. I would have expected it to be different by at least several dozen... perhaps a hundred or so. That's especially true of this vaccine, which had a very high rate of sore arm and 24-hour flu symptoms. You'd expect more dropouts out of the vaccine cohort, but the numbers were very close... I'd have to look it up, but IIRC, the difference between the two cohorts was around 15-20. I could be wrong on that. It's been a couple of years since I looked at the data.