Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Covid vaccines safety

1567911

Comments



  • astrofool wrote: »
    Look, you clearly can't understand the data and results that the lancet prints, so why are you making a fool out of yourself in trying?

    :pac::pac::pac:
    As usual, no surprise from a man of your caliber.




  • patnor1011 wrote: »
    :pac::pac::pac:
    As usual, no surprise from a man of your caliber.

    And no surprise in you acknowledging being completely wrong in how you read the data and reach conclusions, yet again.

    You have chance after chance when you post the guff you have posted to do a proper analysis of it and represent it clearly and every time it's just a regurgitation of "my first anti-vax facebook group". Prove me wrong.




  • Is it possible to get hold of medicines like Ivermectin in Ireland? For those of us who have safety concerns about the vaccine but want to be prepared to fight COVID with alternative treatments.

    Shockingly, doctors can't prescribe this safe and effective drug.

    It's readily available in online vetinary suppy stores as a paste for horses. I recently acquired a very small horse and got a cheap Irish brand of ivermectin oral horse paste called "Noromectin", just in case. The only active ingredient in it is ivermectin and the four inactive ingredients are fit for human consumption—which is good to know in case I, or one of my family, accidently consumed it.

    https://mri.cts-mrp.eu/human/downloads/IR_V_0120_001_FinalSPC.pdf


    The chap in this video deliberately took a similar horse paste, which obviously nobody recommends:





  • astrofool wrote: »
    And no surprise in you acknowledging being completely wrong in how you read the data and reach conclusions, yet again.

    You have chance after chance when you post the guff you have posted to do a proper analysis of it and represent it clearly and every time it's just a regurgitation of "my first anti-vax facebook group". Prove me wrong.

    Honestly, your facebook anti-vax tirades are becoming old. Please be so kind and educate lancet and doctors who put out such garbage if you think you do have so superior knowledge.
    And where exactly am I wrong when all I have said is that:
    -we will have more data on safety from ongoing long term trials
    -covid is generally very mild disease
    -current vaccines only marginally improve severity of disease when contracted




  • patnor1011 wrote: »
    Honestly, your facebook anti-vax tirades are becoming old. Please be so kind and educate lancet and doctors who put out such garbage if you think you do have so superior knowledge.
    And where exactly am I wrong when all I have said is that:
    -we will have more data on safety from ongoing long term trials
    -covid is generally very mild disease
    -current vaccines only marginally improve severity of disease when contracted

    What the lancet put out is perfectly fine and based on the data they gathered.

    Your conclusion to come out and say this is absolute horse manure:
    patnor1011 wrote: »
    -current vaccines only marginally improve severity of disease when contracted

    But as I said, go and get the data and prove me wrong.


  • Advertisement


  • moonage wrote: »
    Shockingly, doctors can't prescribe this safe and effective drug.

    I presume you've also stocked supplies of the equally cheap and actually effective, dexamethasone?

    But look, if you currently have worms, your doctor might prescribe it for you (or one of the other many worming tablets available for humans).




  • patnor1011 wrote: »
    Honestly, your facebook anti-vax tirades are becoming old. Please be so kind and educate lancet and doctors who put out such garbage if you think you do have so superior knowledge.
    And where exactly am I wrong when all I have said is that:
    -we will have more data on safety from ongoing long term trials
    -covid is generally very mild disease
    -current vaccines only marginally improve severity of disease when contracted
    The last two are disingenuous in a calculated way.

    Covid has killed over 3 million people. That's not "mild".
    The vaccines result in a wide range of effects that you are purposefully leaving out.

    You are again misrepresenting people because you can't address their points. Noone, including Astrofool accused the Lancet of "putting out garbage".
    The point he was making was that you were mischaracterising and misrepresenting what was in the Lancet. You do this pretty constantly then throw out false accusations that others do it.

    There is also your general insistance that there is some kind of conspiracy behind the vaccine or the virus.
    And also your previous dishonest claims that you have now seemingly abandoned because they were a bit embarassing for you.




  • I believe people under 40 should not take the vaccine if they are healthy. If they have vulnerabilities, then yes. Under 20s' i would be more worried taking the vaccine. If our hospitals are back under control then we should ease off vaccination for young people.




  • I believe people under 40 should not take the vaccine if they are healthy. If they have vulnerabilities, then yes. Under 20s' i would be more worried taking the vaccine. If our hospitals are back under control then we should ease off vaccination for young people.

    This being based on your PhD research?
    Has it been published in a journal already?




  • Yes the pHd of life? These vaccines are using experimental technology.(So we are told but who knows how long its been around). I find it strange that theories circulating early last year such as the lab theory; strange genome sequences in the virus and indirect funding from America are suddenly coming to the fore? I can't understand Dr Fauci's behaviour or the US CDC. Dr Fauci probably indirectly used a loophole to fund risky gain of function research in a lab with challenging safety procedures. Why deny it? So what if he used a loophole, i believe others have and did? The CDC it appeared decided to sit on confirmation that the vaccines were ready till after the US Election? The pollicisation of this drama is horrific when one stands back from it. The WHO appeared to bend over for China at least initially. If the lab theory is now getting traction, the next question was the virus deliberately released to make it appear as thou it was released there? There is a story that two Us Army doctors whom vaccinated or performed medical exams on athletes attending the Us Military Games in China in late 2019 were recently assassinated? Nothing but question, questions.............


  • Advertisement


  • Yes the pHd of life? These vaccines are using experimental technology.(So we are told but who knows how long its been around). I find it strange that theories circulating early last year such as the lab theory; strange genome sequences in the virus and indirect funding from America are suddenly coming to the fore? I can't understand Dr Fauci's behaviour or the US CDC. Dr Fauci probably indirectly used a loophole to fund risky gain of function research in a lab with challenging safety procedures. Why deny it? So what if he used a loophole, i believe others have and did? The CDC it appeared decided to sit on confirmation that the vaccines were ready till after the US Election? The pollicisation of this drama is horrific when one stands back from it. The WHO appeared to bend over for China at least initially. If the lab theory is now getting traction, the next question was the virus deliberately released to make it appear as thou it was released there? There is a story that two Us Army doctors whom vaccinated or performed medical exams on athletes attending the Us Military Games in China in late 2019 were recently assassinated? Nothing but question, questions.............

    Just to clarify, even if it did originate from a lab. There's absolutely no indication that it's artificial. Also no indication that Fauci is in some way at fault.

    In relation to the weird implication that we've had the vaccine for a long time. Nope, no indication of that. Cuba even came up with one so it's more likely that dedicating a huge amount of resources into research is responsible. Also they've gone through rigorous testing.

    And your claim of assassinations is entirely made up.




  • Yes the pHd of life?
    .
    So your medical opinion isn't actually based on anything.
    Cool.

    Why should anyone take it seriously?




  • Yes the pHd of life? These vaccines are using experimental technology.(So we are told but who knows how long its been around). I find it strange that theories circulating early last year such as the lab theory; strange genome sequences in the virus and indirect funding from America are suddenly coming to the fore? I can't understand Dr Fauci's behaviour or the US CDC. Dr Fauci probably indirectly used a loophole to fund risky gain of function research in a lab with challenging safety procedures. Why deny it? So what if he used a loophole, i believe others have and did? The CDC it appeared decided to sit on confirmation that the vaccines were ready till after the US Election? The pollicisation of this drama is horrific when one stands back from it. The WHO appeared to bend over for China at least initially. If the lab theory is now getting traction, the next question was the virus deliberately released to make it appear as thou it was released there? There is a story that two Us Army doctors whom vaccinated or performed medical exams on athletes attending the Us Military Games in China in late 2019 were recently assassinated? Nothing but question, questions.............

    Questions that conveniently lead you to doubt Covid and vaccines. Almost as if that's the goal all along.




  • Yes the pHd of life..........
    It’s amazing how so few words can render poster so incredibly incongruous




  • patnor1011 wrote: »
    Funny indeed.
    With current uptake of vaccines and some time we will have more data and an idea about what long term effects may be since we are practically in trial phase anyway.
    I am in no rush since current vaccines only marginally improve chance of reducing severity of a generally very mild disease.

    From Lancet:
    Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk
    reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the
    ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which
    is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives
    relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech,
    94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya,
    67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford
    vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the
    background risk of being infected and becoming ill
    with COVID-19, which varies between populations and
    over time. Although the RRR considers only participants
    who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk
    reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack
    rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole
    population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give
    a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for
    the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH,
    1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for
    the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines
    .


    Full link
    https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2666-5247%2821%2900069-0


    Let's try to get to the bottom of this, as reasonably as possible (sorry, this got a bit long!!).

    Those ARR numbers do look very low,
    so it's understandable why people might conclude that the vaccines are hardly worth taking!!
    But that would be a very wrong conclusion!!

    See below for a graph of the actual results from Pfizer clinical trial data
    (from here --> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7745181/)

    In this trial of 43,548 people, half were given a placebo, and half the vaccine, on day 1 and again on day 21.
    The graph below shows the percentage of each group (vaccinated vs placebo takers)
    who developed symptomatic Covid-19 in the 100 or so days that followed.

    As you can see, as time went on, a much higher percentage of placebo takers got symptomatic Covid vs the vaccinated.
    The table tells us that 162 placebo takers got Covid, but only 8 of the vaccinated got Covid.

    This is where they get the 95% effectiveness from.
    You'd expect 162 of the vaccinated to get covid (same as the placebo takers)
    but only 8 got it, which is (8/162) or 5%, so 95% were saved from getting it by the vaccine.

    So how do we calculate the Absolute Risk Reduction? It's simply
    the percentage of the placebo group who got Covid - the percentage of the vaccinated group who got covid.
    From the graph this looks something like 2%

    The ARR looks artificially low because in the 100 days only a small number of the trial participants would catch Covid.
    If all participants were deliberately exposed to Covid (obviously this wouldn't be allowed)
    then we would have a much higher ARR.

    So, do you see why ARR can be misleading,
    and why the RRR (of 95%) gives a much clearer idea of the vaccine protection?

    6034073


    See here for more details --> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7745181/figure/f1/?report=objectonly
    This shows the numbers that progressed through the trial (lots dropped out, etc)

    Also, see the following interesting excerpt from the trial report
    "Two BNT162b2 (vaccine) recipients died (one from arteriosclerosis, one from cardiac arrest),
    as did four placebo recipients (two from unknown causes, one from hemorrhagic stroke, and one from myocardial infarction).
    No deaths were considered by the investigators to be related to the vaccine or placebo.
    No Covid-19–associated deaths were observed."




  • patnor1011 wrote: »
    The European database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, which also tracks reports of injuries and deaths following the experimental COVID-19 “vaccines.”

    ...
    ...

    For anyone who is not bothered to search through database here is summary:

    Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2,Comirnaty) from BioNTech/ Pfizer: 5,368 deaths and 170,528 injuries to 08/05/2021
    12,435 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 54 deaths
    8,551 Cardiac disorders incl. 636 deaths
    62 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 4 deaths
    4,828 Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 3 deaths
    153 Endocrine disorders
    5,413 Eye disorders incl. 9 deaths

    etc
    etc

    Can you tell me how you got the summary you included in that comment?

    I've had a look at some of that data and the reported fatalities are from all sorts of things,
    and many, perhaps most, from conditions that couldn't have developed since taking the vaccine.

    If you look at my previous comment you'll also see that 6 people died during the Pfizer vaccine trial.
    Two of the people who died were from the vaccinated cohort, and four from the placebo cohort.
    Neither the vaccine nor the placebo were deemed to have contributed to these deaths!

    Doesn't this put things in perspective?
    ie. that people don't stop dying (from natural causes) just because they take a vaccine (or a placebo).

    I'd like the take a closer look at the data you referenced (EudraVigilance)
    but I can't find the summary, which includes deaths, like you showed.




  • PintOfView wrote: »
    Can you tell me how you got the summary you included in that comment?

    I've had a look at some of that data and the reported fatalities are from all sorts of things,
    and many, perhaps most, from conditions that couldn't have developed since taking the vaccine.

    If you look at my previous comment you'll also see that 6 people died during the Pfizer vaccine trial.
    Two of the people who died were from the vaccinated cohort, and four from the placebo cohort.
    Neither the vaccine nor the placebo were deemed to have contributed to these deaths!

    Doesn't this put things in perspective?
    ie. that people don't stop dying (from natural causes) just because they take a vaccine (or a placebo).

    I'd like the take a closer look at the data you referenced (EudraVigilance)
    but I can't find the summary, which includes deaths, like you showed.

    Anti-vaxxers are continually using open source stats for any deaths or injuries that occur within the period that a vaccine is given in order to disingenuously scare-monger that the deaths/injuries are caused by the vaccine itself

    We've had it numerous times in this thread, it gets explained, they ignore it. Big overlap between them and conspiracy theorists.




  • Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Anti-vaxxers are continually using open source stats for any deaths or injuries that occur within the period that a vaccine is given in order to disingenuously scare-monger that the deaths/injuries are caused by the vaccine itself

    We've had it numerous times in this thread, it gets explained, they ignore it. Big overlap between them and conspiracy theorists.

    It seems to be very easy for people to misunderstand these stats,
    or to look at them out of context, and draw wrong conclusions.
    The wrong conclusions are passed on to others, who often unquestioningly accept them.

    In addition you seem to have the 'for profit' peddlers of misinformation, who deliberately sensationalise
    the wrong conclusions so they go viral, and then they get more clicks, sell more merchandise, etc.

    The end result is ordinary decent people who come to believe stuff that isn't true,
    and who sometimes end up aggressively defending this bunkum!




  • PintOfView wrote: »
    It seems to be very easy for people to misunderstand these stats,
    or to look at them out of context, and draw wrong conclusions.
    Which is why the VAERS and EudraVigilance have big bolded warnings and disclaimers on the websites telling people that they can't use the data for those kind of conclusions.

    And it's why conspiracy folks tend to leave out the links to the data. Either they weren't show it from the crank they're swallowing stuff from, or they know and they're avoiding it.




  • King Mob wrote: »
    Which is why the VAERS and EudraVigilance have big bolded warnings and disclaimers on the websites telling people that they can't use the data for those kind of conclusions.

    I completely agree. These systems encourage everyone to report anything that might
    possibly be connected to a vaccine, or other medicine, and even anonymously.

    The benefits are that patterns can be discerned through the noise for rare events,
    such as the AstraZeneca clotting issue,
    but they hand the anti-vax people data mixed with noise that can be easily misinterpreted.

    As this Newsweek article says URL="https://www.newsweek.com/how-well-meaning-us-government-database-fuels-dangerous-vaccine-misinformation-1594392"]https://www.newsweek.com/how-well-meaning-us-government-database-fuels-dangerous-vaccine-misinformation-1594392[/URL
    "VAERS is a noisy system by design. It collects unverified reports of
    any adverse health events reported to have happened following vaccination.
    The database includes reports based entirely on hearsay, or lacking a plausible link to a vaccine,
    such as someone dying in a car accident on their drive home from getting a vaccine.
    Although vaccine manufacturers are required to submit reports, anyone can submit a report to VAERS,
    without providing a name or contact information"


  • Advertisement


  • patnor1011 wrote: »
    Funny indeed.
    With current uptake of vaccines and some time we will have more data and an idea about what long term effects may be since we are practically in trial phase anyway.
    I am in no rush since current vaccines only marginally improve chance of reducing severity of a generally very mild disease.

    From Lancet:
    Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk
    reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the
    ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which
    is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives
    relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech,
    94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya,
    67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford
    vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the
    background risk of being infected and becoming ill
    with COVID-19, which varies between populations and
    over time. Although the RRR considers only participants
    who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk
    reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack
    rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole
    population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give
    a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for
    the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH,
    1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for
    the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.


    Full link
    https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2666-5247%2821%2900069-0

    Just wondering if your failure to respond means that you saw from subsequent posts
    that you were mistaken re the "marginal" effects of the vaccine ?
    (preventing symptoms in 95% of people exposed to Covid is hardly marginal!)




  • Nah, because "preventing symptoms" argument is hardly quantifiable if at all possible anyway.

    You see, if you do not have symptoms you are not sick. It is that simple. Asymptomatic carrier spread was debunked long time ago and is simply not happening.

    Lack of symptoms and positive PCR test only means false positive or that you already had it at some stage and test is picking up remnants and fragments of dead corona viruses.





  • You haven't debunked anything.

    You made claims that you couldn't back up and then ran away when your lies were called out.


    I know there's no point asking you to provide evidence for your new silly claim about PCR tests. You aren't going to even acknowledge it.





  • Your response tells me that you either didn't read the report on the Pfizer trial, or my response to you, or if you did then you didn't understand either! Another possibility is that you simply believe some website giving out bad information, and you don't trust yourself to be able to understand the actual facts!

    Here is the summary again: 40,000 people enrolled on the Pfizer trial. These were split at random into two groups. One group of 20,000 was given the vaccine, the other group of 20,000 was given a placebo. Both groups were told to go home and carry on as normal.

    After 100 days the results were gathered (remember the groups were random, so you'd expect roughly the same experience in both groups).

    • Placebo group: 162 got symptomatic Covid, 9 got severe Covid
    • Vaccinated group: 8 got symptomatic Covid, 1 got severe Covid

    You don't need to be a statistician to understand that you would expect something like 160 people in the vaccinated group to get Covid, and 9 to get severe Covid. However, instead, only 8 got symptomatic Covid, and only 1 got severe Covid. Do you not think that's pretty clear? and it demonstrates the vaccine was very effective!

    Does this not make sense to you? If not then how can you expect to look at any of the relevant information about Covid and draw any kind of sensible conclusions from it?





  • Why would I be interested in that trial? It happened some time ago when there was whole different virus variant and many other circumstances changed since. Current reality looks very different than this trial you seems to cling on despite that trial data are mostly irrelevant now.





  • Your response looks to me like a total cop out, and is disappointing as I thought you might engage on a rational level!

    However, going on your response, are you saying that the vaccine was 95% effective against the variant of the virus last autumn, but not against today's variant? And if that's what you're saying, what justification can you give for your views?





  • I do not know you so I do not really care about your feelings. Your response evoked similar reaction here yet I generally do not feel the need to start with this kind of nonsense.

    You guys always try this crap of "I think that you think..." or "I think that what you are saying is..." followed by some elaborate construction which is mostly your own fantasy actually.

    Am I saying that vaccine was 95% effective against the variant of the virus last autumn, but not against today's variant? No. It seems Israel Ministry of Health thinks that it happened in two out of three of what you simplified in "effective against" requirements or effects of vaccine.

    First of you do need to specify what "effective against" you are talking about. Is it contracting virus? Becoming symptomatic? Requiring hospitalization? It is in fact all 3 of those which are being monitored or talked about.

    Oh forgot to cater for "Link?" people who cant figure out how google works.


    Post edited by patnor1011 on




  • What are you trying to say?

    The Pfizer vaccine has been shown to be 96% effective against hospitalization from COVID (UK Gov) and 93% in Israel (which is about the same as for the alpha variant), from your own link: "Vaccine effectiveness in preventing both infection and symptomatic disease fell to 64% since June 6, the Health Ministry said. At the same time the vaccine was 93% effective in preventing hospitalizations and serious illness from the coronavirus.



  • Advertisement


  • I thought was just me he did this with, or I was mistaken. Seems not on both counts.



Advertisement