Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

hometruths

A little bit of further reading on Christine Stabell Benn suggests she is eminently sensible. She is against vaccinating children for covid as the risk/reward does not favour it. And she has been censored by social media, often a good sign of somebody talking sense:

When her content is also subject to censorship, it has gone too far, she believes.

- The problem is that the only thing that eventually gets through the filter is the message that vaccines are effective and safe. Everyone knows it's not just that simple. This censorship is the most toxic. It risks at the same time creating more mistrust of vaccines and hindering a healthy and nuanced scientific conversation about vaccines, which is ultimately crucial to ensuring effective and safe vaccines, says Christine Stabell Benn.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119473438#Comment_119473438

Last time I checked, every country that was still publishing Covid case rates by vaccination status pro rata showed higher rates in the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated - negative effectiveness - and this was happening regularly. Harder to keep track of now because most countries just stopped publishing the data once it no longer showed a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

But that's not the only evidence - yes of course the study showing negative effectiveness at 8 months is also evidence of negative effectiveness.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119473471#Comment_119473471

And did these rates account for risk? That people who are vaccinated are also likely to be concentrated in health care etc etc?

Or in older demographics who are more likely to be vaccinated? And are more likely to be tested due to more health care involvement?

And do you think therefore that this is a balanced comparison?

And you think in the weight of evidence, that 15000 cases prevented over the lifetime of the study, you place zero value on?

Or the evidence from the study showing the durable effect of protection against severe covid.

After all, if you accept the study, you must accept these findings also.

Yet you place zero value on all those studies and continually focus on one finding with a much smaller sample from and ignore the confidence interval? This is not a balanced assessment of the evidence but represents cherry picking.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119473493#Comment_119473493

And did these rates account for risk? That people who are vaccinated are also likely to be concentrated in health care etc etc?

Or in older demographics who are more likely to be vaccinated? And are more likely to be tested due to more health care involvement?

This is relevant to the point Professor Bell is making - we'll never know for sure now. Because the trials were unblinded and the placebo group were vaccinated.

Which is suboptimal to put it mildly.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119473571#Comment_119473571

Where does Professor Bell say this in the article you linked?

Where does Professor Bell say that the trial should not have been unblinded and for how long should the vaccine have been withheld?

https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2021-08-24-professor-undsiger-mette-frederiksen-og-brostroem

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119473626#Comment_119473626

Here we go again. Is this another "she never said that exactly thus you are wrong" deflection?

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119473649#Comment_119473649

She did not say it and so you can’t say that she said it or meant it. If she wanted to say it then the paper is the place she would have said it. You can have all the fantasies you want about what you want people to have said, but if they don’t say what’s in your head then you are wrong. It’s quite simple.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119473649#Comment_119473649

The article you linked was about vaccination in children as far as I could establish from google translate.

Where does she say anything to the point that "This is relevant to the point Professor Bell is making - we'll never know for sure now. Because the trials were unblinded and the placebo group were vaccinated."

So perhaps you can share where in the text she says this, or perhaps you intended to link another article.

Or withdraw you attribution of this point to the professor.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119473754#Comment_119473754

Ok let's not get into a Yes she did say that, no she didn't say it, yes she meant that, no she didn't. Totally pointless waste of time.

What do you think of the point?

Is it fair to say one of the unfortunate consequences of the trials being unblinded and the placebos vaccinated within weeks of the approval is that any future findings of vaccine efficacy etc can be confounded by behavioural biases?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119473776#Comment_119473776

I don't agree with either premise.

You attributed a point to an expert, the article you linked contained no such point either directly or indirectly. It's entirely valid to question that or people can make anything they want up. If you don't want to get into games of he said, she said, if you are attributing a point to an expert be specific about whether it is a point they have made, or a conclusion you have drawn from reading their work.

You cannot withhold vaccine from the trial participants during a pandemic indefinitely. However long the vaccines had been withheld for, we'd have someone saying they should have been withheld longer. They are human beings in a pandemic, not guinea pigs.

... everybody else who had the placebo shot went ahead and got the actual vaccine. So now Fierro has essentially no comparison group left for the ongoing study. "It's a loss from a scientific standpoint, but given the circumstances I think it's the right thing to do," he says.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/19/969143015/long-term-studies-of-covid-19-vaccines-hurt-by-placebo-recipients-getting-immuni

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119473831#Comment_119473831

You attributed a point to an expert, the article you linked contained no such point either directly or indirectly. It's entirely valid to question that or people can make anything they want up. If you don't want to get into games of he said, she said, if you are attributing a point to an expert be specific about whether it is your point or a conclusion you have drawn from reading their work.

Professor Bell said:

What I’m trying to advocate in Denmark is to roll out (a new coronavirus vaccine) in a randomised way. Let’s do it in a way where half of the target group gets the vaccine and the other half doesn’t get it and we can do some long-term follow-up, because that’s the only way to be sure.

Fierro said:

"It's a loss from a scientific standpoint

Precisely the point Professor Bell is making, and I am making.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119473853#Comment_119473853

Yes to the data loss.

But she made no direct comment in relation to the original trials or why the vaccine was offered / not withheld from the participants. She was speaking in abstract. That was something you added.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119473962#Comment_119473962

I didn't attribute it directly to her. I said it was relevant to the point she was making:

This is relevant to the point Professor Bell is making - we'll never know for sure now. Because the trials were unblinded and the placebo group were vaccinated.

And it is.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119473986#Comment_119473986

You started the second sentence with 'Because' which suggests they were connected clauses.

Which is why I asked for clarification - which you have now provided. Point closed.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119474050#Comment_119474050

You can have all the fantasies you want about what you want people to have said, but if they don’t say what’s in your head then you are wrong.

Perhaps there are politer ways to ask for clarification.

hometruths

And just in case anybody is any doubt about what Professor Benn thinks of the vaccine trials being unblinded:

https://twitter.com/stabellbenn/status/1400055351928573954

kernkraft500

the good thing about science is, there's usually more than one person trying to do the same thing...

There was a moral dilemma at the start of vaccine rollout to advise placebo groups not to get vaccinated in the name of science... this was seen as ethically wrong, so volunteers were not asked to do so, but were asked to advise whether they did or not on follow up checks...

however, in the likes of the US and Brazil due to vaccine hesitancy, there are numerous full studies in progress on many of the vaccinated vs unvaccinated questions.... so all is not lost from a scientific perspective..

unfortunately, as COVID has progressed, the un-vaccinated "control" have gotten COVID and hence produced antibodies and are skewing any data around initial hypothesis in studies...

the purebloods aren't so pure afterall..

But, for future studies, it will be nearly impossible to find volunteers who haven't had some sort of COVID antibody exposure, hence why a new line in the sand needs to be drawn.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119474090#Comment_119474090

There was a moral dilemma at the start of vaccine rollout to advise placebo groups not to get vaccinated in the name of science... this was seen as ethically wrong, so volunteers were not asked to do so, but were asked to advise whether they did or not on follow up checks...

Asked to advise whether they subsequently got vaccinated? That sounds like more revisionism. Sure there was a dilemma, but the idea that part of the follow up included checking whether the volunteers subsequently chose to get vaccinated like regular Joes is a bit of a stretch. When approval was granted they were contacted expressly to be offered the vaccine. From the article odyssey linked:

People signing up for these studies were not promised special treatment, but once the FDA authorized the vaccines, their developers decided to offer the shots.

And this was against the FDA's recommendations.

The companies say they have an ethical obligation to unblind volunteers so they can receive the vaccine. But some experts are concerned about a “disastrous” loss of critical information if volunteers on a trial’s placebo arm are unblinded.

To try to tackle the problem the FDA invited Steven Goodman, associate dean of clinical and translational research at Stanford University, for a recommendation that could balance the right of volunteers to find out whether they were in the placebo arm and the simultaneous need to preserve scientific data.

Goodman recommended a study design endorsed by Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: a blinded crossover study in which placebo recipients would be given the vaccine, and vice versa. That would ensure that all volunteers receive the vaccine but would be unaware of which shot they received at which time. This would allow ongoing surveillance of safety issues and more time to observe any waning effects of the vaccine and the possible need for booster doses.

But the companies said that the demands of a blinded crossover design were “onerous” and might not be feasible. And even before the FDA advisory committee meeting on Moderna’s vaccine on 17 December, the company notified volunteers that they could learn their status if they chose to receive the vaccine.

Pfizer also sent a letter to its trial participants one week after its vaccine was authorised on 10 December. It told them that, on request, they could learn whether they were in the placebo arm so they could receive the vaccine as it became available and according to recommendations of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

So the companies with the financial and intellectual firepower to create and test the vaccine in under 10 months thought a crossover study would be onerous and not feasible? Seems legit.

kernkraft500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119474536#Comment_119474536

no, fortunately everything isn't revisionism ... it's called having an understanding of your experiment...

are you suggesting volunteers if they wanted to, shouldn't have been allowed to get a vaccine as they see fit? (or, in the majority of cases, get the booster before their follow up check)

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119474586#Comment_119474586

No, I am suggesting that the idea that the follow up involved checking whether the placebo recipients chose to receive the vaccination during the regular roll out sounds like revisionism. As soon as the EUA was issued they were offered the vaccination by the trial organisers.

And I am suggesting that this was expressly against the recommendation of the FDA, a recommendation which was made specifically to enable the volunteers to get the vaccine if they wished, whilst maintaining the value of the trials as best as possible.

And I am suggesting that pharma companies should not be allowed to make up their own rules about unblinding trials.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119474586#Comment_119474586

What would have had to happen is that the participants in the Moderna trial when unblinded wouldn't receive Moderna, but would receive AZ or Jansen and I guess a second shot placebo \ vice versa. Using Moderna and Pfizer would seem to be of less value in a crossover study. Given the different timelines for approval of the different types of vaccines the feasibility of this is non trivial.

The FDA recommended crossover as a non-binding guideline. It was not a rule. If the FDA deemed it that important they would need to have co-ordinated this unblinding across companies bearing in mind the above points as yes it does appear rather onerous for each company itself.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119474608#Comment_119474608

They didn't make up their own rules.

kernkraft500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119474608#Comment_119474608

how does somebody choosing to get a vaccine even remotely come across as revisionism?

Or even better, how does a company asking about their vaccine status in a follow up, so they can add in the caveats that "x amount of people have since gotten the vaccine" constitute revisionism?

If you read some actual studies, you would see these caveats mentioned all the time.. unfortunately the real world isn't as black and white

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119474626#Comment_119474626

A figure of speech. I'll rephrase it if you prefer.

I am suggesting that the pharma companies should not be allowed to ignore FDA recommendations about unblinding trials.

It seems correct to me that the requirements are onerous for the approval of vaccinations, particularly emergency use approvals.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119474638#Comment_119474638

Or even better, how does a company asking about their vaccine status in a follow up, so they can add in the caveats that "x amount of people have since gotten the vaccine" constitute revisionism?

Because that's not what happened. As soon as the EUA was issued the company contacted the placebo group and said would you like us to vaccinate you now.

Dr. Carlos Fierro, who runs the study there, says every participant was called back after the Food and Drug Administration authorized the vaccine.

"During that visit we discussed the options, which included staying in the study without the vaccine," he says, "and amazingly there were people — a couple of people — who chose that."

kernkraft500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119474719#Comment_119474719

so people got a choice whether to vaccinate or not... pretty much what I said, thanks for clearing that up.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119474732#Comment_119474732

What you said was:

There was a moral dilemma at the start of vaccine rollout to advise placebo groups not to get vaccinated in the name of science... this was seen as ethically wrong, so volunteers were not asked to do so, but were asked to advise whether they did or not on follow up checks...

The volunteers were not asked during follow up checks whether or not they subsequently chose to receive the vaccine in the normal course of the rollout. They were asked at the earliest opportunity if they would like to be vaccinated as part of the trial.

They were asked this by people who thought it was amazing that anybody would choose not to get the vaccine. This was also expressly against the recommendations of the FDA.

To suggest that the pharma companies would have preferred to keep the trials blinded with a placebo group, and were struggling with the moral and ethical issues of advising placebo groups not to get vaccinated in the name of science is pure revisionism.

kernkraft500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119474759#Comment_119474759

not revisionism... giving them the choice to get vaccinated during a pandemic

robinph

They were asked this by people who thought it was amazing that anybody would choose not to get the vaccine.

Not exactly surprising that people who had enrolled in a vaccine study would be interested in getting a vaccine. I'm guessing there are not too many anti vaxxers signing up vaccine trials.

Of course the people in the trial would want to have the vaccine, they would have been hoping they already had it so why wouldn't they take it if they were part of the placebo group?

robinph

BBC News - Covid: UK approves Moderna's Omicron booster

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-62548336

New omicron vaccine approved.

And just to prove that the vaccines manufacturers are only in it to get us to all take more jabs as often as possible this new one is expected to only be needed annually, if that, rather than the every few months they were "forcing" us to do before.

kernkraft500

"In the UK, the following people will be offered some form of booster:"

poor folks, must be rough working under all that coercion...

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119476498#Comment_119476498

And don't forget all the permanent restrictions that they've been living under.

kernkraft500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119481519#Comment_119481519

A dystopia, it's like something from 1984... all these sheep following the governments demands

hometruths

One of the most fervent covid vaccine skeptics is threatening to sue one of the most fervent fact checkers - Steve Kirsch vs Media Matters.

Kirsch was interviewed by Fox News and claimed “hundreds of thousands of Americans have been killed by this vaccine and millions have been injured”. Media Matters subsequently reported this as "Fox News guest lies about the COVID vaccine killing “hundreds of thousands” and says it’s “the most dangerous vaccine ever created” - https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-news-guest-lies-about-covid-vaccine-killing-hundreds-thousands-and-says-its-most

Now Kirsch has told them if they don't provide proof that he lied or remove the article he will sue them for defamation. https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/i-put-media-matters-on-notice-just

I guess in the first instance Media Matters will trot out the usual all the evidence is the vaccines are safe and effective as proof that he lied and stand firm, but I suspect that will not satisfy Kirsch.

I think he'll go ahead and sue them. He's seems to have pockets deep enough to do it, and appears to be convinced he's right.

What do others think will happen? Is Kirsch a bluffer, just a grifter making a load of noise for more paying subs, and will drop this quietly? Or will he go ahead and sue them? It does seem odd he hasn't sued any other fact checkers before, he's been fact checked a ton of times.

And what about Media Matters? Will they stand firm and go to court if necessary? I don't think they would have done if Kirsch has said killed thousands of Americans - in that case I think they would have retracted it, but I suspect they'll feel on firmer ground defending hundreds of thousands.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119482177#Comment_119482177

He won’t have a leg to stand on as he will have to produce the evidence that they killed hundreds of thousands to prove they are wrong. Where will he get that from?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119482239#Comment_119482239

I'd agree that sounds like a tall order, but what struck me about this is it looks like his motivation is he wants to be heard trying to prove it. That's why i think it might develop into something more interesting than outrage and bluster.

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119482732#Comment_119482732

Anyone can threaten to sue anyone. I doubt he will follow through.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119482867#Comment_119482867

Yea obvious grift is obvious.

Notice first how he's doing the same tactic we've seen throughout this thread. Makes a far out claim, then demands others disprove it or prove the inverse rather than actually provide the evidence he claims or implies he has. He can't do this of course because he is lying as the vaccine hasn't killed hundreds of thousands of Americans and he's got no evidence to back this up.

Threatening to sue is a win win win for him no matter what happens.

Firstly it gets attention from antivaxxers and conspiracy theorists cause they think it's a case that's going to go somewhere. So even if he doesn't go any further (which is what will most likely happen) he's already got what he wanted as hometruths has demonstrated by giving him credulous attention.

Secondly if he does go further but the case doesn't go very far cause it's stupid, then he can milk that for even more attention by whining about how the courts are against him and won't even listen to his evidence. Same if the case actually gets anywhere, but fails due to him being in the wrong.

It's the line that Alex Jones is currently using to grift his rubes.

And of course if the case manages to go ahead, it generates even more attention as now he gets to be the noble truth sayer who's taking on these horrible fact checkers. And at any point he can bail and claim there's a conspiracy against him.

And on the extremely unlikely possibility that the case goes ahead and somehow manages to win...

This will most likely be forgotten inside a week though.

Wonder why he's going after that fact checker and not Politifact, which is much more well known and called him a liar twice:

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/steve-kirsch/

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483395#Comment_119483395

Of course the regular conspiracy theorists here fall for it, and the proof is in the posting of it here and belief Kirsch is serious about suing on something that would make him look a fool.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483680#Comment_119483680

Yup and we see the same kind of hedging.

"I'm not saying he's right or that he's serious, I just think it's an interesting event. It's just a coincidence that posting it gives him more attention."

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483691#Comment_119483691

I don't think he is right, but I do think he is serious.

kernkraft500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483810#Comment_119483810

I think he's seriously incorrect also

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119483810#Comment_119483810

Yes, I'm sure he's serious about getting as much attention as possible. I doubt he cares very much about being accused lying or spreading misinformation.

If he did, he wouldn't be on Fox news lying and spreading misinformation.

snowcat

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11120343/Shaun-Ryders-brother-Paul-going-deaf-48-hours-death.html

Another suddden death soon after the dose. Shure seems to be a lot os sudden/excess deaths around.

On a side note it is proberly better for the planet if excess deaths rise. We are way too populous on the planet and our extended lifespanns and fertility is a disaster for human survival. A good strong virus that trims the human population would be welcomed by every other species not so much by the normal people however.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119487109#Comment_119487109

Something doesnt add up.

'The coroner has reported that Paul passed away as a result of Ischaemic heart disease and diabetes. At this point in time we have no further information until the full coroner’s report is released."

sydthebeat

An guy who openly discussed his long term problem with drug addiction dies of an issue (ischemic heart disease) which is associated with long term recreational drug use. Quelle surprise.

Bit of advice, don't go to that rag for your news. It deliberately targets the lowly educated with click bait articles in order to make advert money

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119487109#Comment_119487109

Another link dump to a singlar death for which there is zero evidence for a connection to the vaccine.

Weird how the idea seems to switch between the notion that people are going to die instantly from the vaccine and the notion that people will only see side effects months or years down the line.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119482867#Comment_119482867

Looks like he won't be suing after all. Media Matters have removed the claims of lies from the headline and point out that "experts emphatically disagree" with him.

Clips published by Media Matters as opposed to other parts of the website where analysis and research are published are intended to be a resource and repository. We have revised the original headline to remove the word “lies” so as to ensure the published post meets our editorial guidelines.

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-news-guest-claims-covid-vaccine-killing-hundreds-thousands-and-says-its-most-dangerous

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119487767#Comment_119487767

I'm sure that Fox news will be posting their correction and clarification of his claims now soon as well.

..