Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091287#Comment_119091287

I am reminded of ...

IN DOUGLAS ADAMS'S novel Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, a computer program called Reason can retroactively justify any decision, providing an incontrovertible argument that whatever was decided was the right thing to do.

This is obviously someone searching for half truths, semantics and weasel words to justify an instinctive \ gut reaction.

Although also obviously, their arguments are controvertible as they aren't using Reason (or reason).

bad2thebone

I'm well aware that ye tools accuse anyone who's new of being a rereg. Everyone who wants to have a discussion should put ye on ignore. It's a free for all and you just wind people up.

Ye think people who used to post here regularly feel as if they have lost the discussion. Far from it it's because you tools keep on swinging and monkey branching and turning the discussion into a rambling pile of ****.

It's even been discussed elsewhere what a shower of Muppets ye are.

Ye won't debate in the other covid forums because the 3 of you here won't get away with talking about other members on those forums.

But ye are rumbled and it's clear ye are trying to dismantle anything that's negative about the vaccines.

Ye know that they are not what they are supposed to be. It's been posted here time and time again.

Who in their right minds wants to inject themselves with that ****, millions of spike protiens into their body and their own immune system wondering what the heck are these guys doing here. Creating an absolute mess of the immune systems. I'm sure you shills know the danger's too but ye have to keep on throwing the ball into the other court.

Hometruths is posting in good faith and you guys are trying to put them off posting here too

Some journalists lol the same type of chills who are probably with the woke mob.

Woke mob lol I'm loving it.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091287#Comment_119091287

There chief benefit is not a prophylactic, i.e preventative, it is not one of active immunisation as intended, thus I referred to them as so called vaccines because they have delivered something which is undoubtedly beneficial, but it is different to what the approved use is.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119090680#Comment_119090680

4 of them? I think there are far more than 4. You've left out @ohnonotgmail , @pjohnson, @storker , @Timberrrrrrrr @Fighting Tao , @banie01 - the circle-jerk gang

If Leo came out and said "sodomy is the cure for covid" this gang would be the first to have their pants around their ankles

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091298#Comment_119091298

a computer program called Reason can retroactively justify any decision, providing an incontrovertible argument that whatever was decided was the right thing to do.

Indeed.

1) Decide to approve the emergency use of a vaccine to prevent cases of Covid 19 because the benefits of preventing cases outweigh the risks of fast tracking approval.

2) Discover that the vaccine does not actually prevent cases of Covid 19, but it does reduce the severity of cases

3) Realise that the emergency use does not cover it's use in reducing the severity of cases. Is that a technical problem meaning the approval is actually invalid?

4) Doesn't matter, just retroactively say we originally approved it to reduce the severity of cases.

5) Hey presto, vaccine is working as we said it would, we did the right thing.

Job done.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091400#Comment_119091400

I reject the premise that the vaccine didn't prevent symptomatic infection. It did, of varying degrees versus different variants but at the time of approval this was a valid reason.

But regardless, in its primary and MORE IMPORTANT role...

Vaccine is working. We have multiple vaccines that help to save lives and prevent disease. We did the right thing.

Counter argument is what exactly??? Pedantic jobsworth nonsense.

We should let patient die because someone filled out the paperwork incorrectly?

There is zero argument here about the safety of the vaccine. Zero conspiracy theory.

I don't have clue, and am not alone, in what your real material objection is.

It's like quibbling we should have made the right decision for reason X and not reason Y and what exactly???

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091419#Comment_119091419

There is a lot that I agree with in what you say but it essentially boils down to "OK, it didn't work very well providing the benefits we approved it for, but it did work well providing other benefits, that were unclear at the time of the approval, so it all worked out well in the end, hence we made the right decision"

Yes up to a point, but essentially we got lucky. The approval of medicines is done on a risk/benefit analysis and if we set a precedent that the benefit side of that analysis is a bit of a grey area, go for it and hope for the best, sure it might work out if we get lucky, I think that's a pretty dangerous precedent to set.

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091126#Comment_119091126

Its good to have someone on board with a degree of realism. Like it or not King Mob most people took the vaccine because they believed it stopped transmission and it was for the greater good..or else so they could go on holidays. You would have had no where near 90% take up if the narrative was it prevents severe illness and death when you were not at risk of severe illness or death. Certainly anyone i know took the vaccine because they believed it stopped transmission..or again because they wanted to travel.

Remember the mantra at the start of the vaxx program that we would need X amount vaxxed for herd immunity. That went well..

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091473#Comment_119091473

No. Based on the variants they were trialled against they were approved for valid reasons. You have failed to present evidence to the contrary disputing those findings.

The vaccine trials were tracking severity of cases as part of the data collected.

The trials detected that it triggered an immune response against covid. In the trials this was detected as reduction in symptoms.

It wasn't merely a matter of 'luck' and it is entirely wrong to present it as such.

It wasn't like they trialled a vaccine for covid, it was found to have no effect against covid in the real world but hey we got lucky it actually prevents bowel cancer.

So I entirely reject the premise of your argument.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091538#Comment_119091538

No. Based on the variants they were trialled against they were approved for valid reasons. You have failed to present evidence to the contrary disputing those findings.

I'm not disputing those findings. Take Pfizer as an example. The findings from the trial data was that the vaccine was 95% effective at preventing symptomatic cases of Covid. The EMA judged the trial data to be sound and consequently approved the vaccine for preventing symptomatic cases of Covid.

The vaccine trials were tracking severity of cases as part of the data collected.

The trials detected that it triggered an immune response against covid. In the trials this was detected as reduction in symptoms.

At the time of the approval, there was not enough data to conclude whether or not there would be any benefits in reducing the severity of the symptoms. That is exactly why they did not approve it for that use.

It wasn't merely a matter of 'luck' and it is entirely wrong to present it as such.

If there was not enough trial data regarding reducing the severity of symptoms and time of approval, and subsequently data from real world use showed it was effective at reducing severity, if not luck what would you call it - genius? Psychic?

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091383#Comment_119091383

They're all up each other's arses as far as I can see.

They cannot understand why us "antivaxxer conspiracy theorists nutters" aren't hopping off each other and joining in their reindeer games.

There's a reason why they don't like us, not because we're dirty not because we're clean, it's just because we're not part of the scene and can read about covid vaccines.

They're just a shower of tools, they have nothing interesting to add to the discussion. They know exactly what you guys are trying to explain but they're not having it. Like a bunch of parrot's buzzing off each other and I've even read about them under a YouTube clip. The pro vaxers on the boards.ie conspiracy thery forum. They're a laughing stock.

And I would believe it if a few of them were civil servants or have vested interests or could be a journalist or two there too.

Proud conspiracy theorist myself, I love delving into things.

They won't be laughing when the funk hits the fan.

Everyone should put them on ignore, I notise Kingmob follows people around even when they say they will not be going to interact with the pleb. Hed be pining after them dragging his knuckles along.... please don't go...why are you not answering me, give me an answer now, oh so you're chickening out. It's evident in the thread.

He's probably at home in the basement with the Ukraine facemask and purple hair and leggings on sipping on koolade and eating doughnuts.... Actually you don't have basements in Ireland much do ye...

snowcat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091567#Comment_119091567

Any comment King Mob? 🤤 Im sure you would like me to refute or confirm the leggings or facemask. Its possible though..

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091563#Comment_119091563

How is it luck? It was a trial on how humans responded to the vaccine versus the virus.

The results of the trial showed an immune response from the vaccine versus the virus, in the trial this appeared as a reduction in symptomatic infection.

A basic understanding of the biological concepts of a vaccine, that if an immune response is triggered, that it was reasonable to consider the possibility that this could also scale up to a reduction in severity of infection. Can you explain why this would be an unexpected event?

Was the mechanism of action by which the vaccines reduced severity of infection entirely unexpected versus that which in the trials was detected by reducing symptomatic infection? Well?

Does that require psychic abilities??? Perhaps you could back that up with something.

You have completely failed to explain what alternative course of action should have been followed, or what was wrong in the original approval, or what the authorities should have done differently in the midst of a pandemic for which vaccines were urgently needed.

These were the original Moderna results, for example:

Only 11 people who received two doses of the vaccine developed COVID-19 symptoms after being infected with the pandemic coronavirus, versus 185 symptomatic cases in a placebo group. That is an efficacy of 94.1%, the company says, far above what many vaccine scientists were expecting just a few weeks ago. More impressive still, Moderna's candidate had 100% efficacy against severe disease. There were zero such COVID-19 cases among those vaccinated, but 30 in the placebo group, including one death from the disease.

And that not all vaccines were approved- here's a failure, Curevac. So your concerns about 'precedence' are without foundation.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/curevacs-covid-19-vaccine-misses-efficacy-goal-mass-trial-2021-06-16/

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091581#Comment_119091581

Id say he likes that kind of thing, I can picture him there and his cross face, you know how he makes that face. He picks up his phone, ahhhhh antivaxxers, he's probably phoning a friend now.....

Wait for him, he's probably after sending out an sos to his hench men...

Doing pushups...

He's such a knob.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091653#Comment_119091653

You quote the results of the Moderna trial, which you're correct looked at the data for the prevention of severe Covid.

In discussing the reasons for approval though it is more appropriate to quote what the EMA thought of the results and how they factored that into their analysis and decision to approve:

2.5.4. Conclusions on the clinical efficacy

It is likely that the vaccine also protects against severe COVID-19, though these events were limited in the study and the definition of severe COVID-19 could have been more stringent from a clinical perspective

Cautiously positive at best, but certainly not enough data for specific approval on these grounds.

In any event, at the time of the approval, they were not too concerned about the specific risk/benefit analysis of preventing severe covid, precisely because they believed, at that time:

3.2. Favourable effects

The main favourable effect is the ability to prevent COVID-19....

...From the experience with other vaccines it is expected that prevention of severe COVID-19 will be achieved by preventing COVID-19 overall. 

Hence why they approved the vaccine to prevent covid cases, not to reduce the severity of covid cases.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/spikevax-previously-covid-19-vaccine-moderna-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091792#Comment_119091792

And we come back to. What's your point?

The trials found an immune response yes or no? Answer: Yes.

Symptomatic infection against the variants circulating at the time of the trial was reduced.

So it was approved on valid grounds.

This particular benefit was later reduced by the impact of variants.

But the immune response, also manifested in protection against severity was more durable, is attested by real world data. Is this effect contrary to known understanding of the operation of vaccines? Nope.

So what was wrong with the approval decision?

Nothing.

How many posts on this thread and you've got nothing. Just semantic games.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091848#Comment_119091848

Once again, my point is not that difficult to understand:

This is my problem with the vaccines. When the vaccines were first rolled out the clear expectation was that the primary function was to prevent catching Covid.

When it became abundantly clear that this was not working as intended, but they were having good effect in preventing serious illness and death, very few vaccine proponents acknowledged this. It was spun as if the primary function all along was to reduce serious illness and death, and anybody who thought they were taking the vaccine to prevent them getting Covid just didn't understand how vaccines worked.

This is total and utter nonsense, and as far as I am concerned it undermines all subsequent claims about the vaccine efficacy and safety.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091860#Comment_119091860

Your point is difficult to understand as it is nothing more than semantic games. It is going out of your way to find issue with something while entirely failing to point out what was wrong with the trials or their approval or the vaccines. You just engage in semantic games about he said, she said.

The vaccine trials were tracking safety. How are claims are the vaccine safety undermined by the shift - if we accept it, which I don't? Nope, again you have have dozens of posts and completely failed to establish a case. You seem to be arguing the vaccines are unsafe even through they passed safety trials because of what was SAID about them? How are the vaccines any less safe? You say it but don't explain why.

So this is nonsense. Utterly without merit and without foundation. You aren't convincing anyone. You've gone down a rabbit hole of your own making and nobody is following you down.

You have a problem with vaccines. Full stop. Not a single thing you have said on this thread has convinced me (and the multiple other posters who have challenged you) that the points you raise about 'spin' is a real objection and not an excuse.

Yes or No? The vaccines were approved correctly as being efficacious and safe?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091914#Comment_119091914

We're discussing the regulatory approval of medicines. In that context, semantics - i.e the precise meaning of words - is very important.

I am claiming that the regulator went from advocating the standard of a successful vaccine that prevents symptomatic Covid cases, to a subsequently pivoting to advocating that the successful standard of the same vaccine was preventing severe illness and death.

To illustrate this I can quote from the December 2020 report that the initial approval was based on:

From the experience with other vaccines it is expected that prevention of severe COVID-19 will be achieved by preventing COVID-19 overall.

And from the December 2021 Executive Director's end of year message, reflecting on a successful year of vaccine rollout, in which nowhere does she mention the performance of preventing Covid but in fact says:

Vaccination remains key in saving people from severe disease and from death, even in view of the emergence of the new variant.

I really cannot see what semantic games is making this so difficult to understand for you.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091504#Comment_119091504

The vaccines and results were specifically all about the reduction in symptoms and cases of deaths.

The reduction in transmission was a great bonus on top of the above.

And just to be clear.

They had massive effects on transmission that lead to SARS-COV2 becoming manageable rather than overwhelming the health system.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092033#Comment_119092033

They were approved based on reduction of severity in addition to an excellent safety profile (the safety profile was an absolutely incredible thing to be achieved), arguing anything else is just plain false.

Even within the first results, the reduction in transmission was estimated at about 60% and that was with the original variant rather than vs. Delta which had a much higher R.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092033#Comment_119092033

For the umpteenth time of asking you have failed to show what was wrong with the regulatory decision at the time based on the data gathered properly as part of the trial.

You have failed to show why the regulators should not have approved the vaccines.

You have failed to show what is actually wrong with the vaccines or the actions or processes of the regulator. Only that their understanding of the vaccines evolved in response to more data and the evolution of the virus.

You have failed to put forward any actual safety issues with the vaccine. Yet somehow you feel their safety has been undermined.

You have failed to put forward any coherent case for what they should have done differently.

So at this stage yep its just semantic games you are playing. The only person you are fooling with them is yourself. The rest of us have heard enough to know you have nothing.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092129#Comment_119092129

Here is a quote from the report which accompanied approval for Pfizer vaccine by the EMA which would suggest otherwise:

3.3. Uncertainties and limitations about favourable effects

Based on the available limited data, no reliable conclusion on the efficacy of the vaccine against severe COVID-19 can be drawn from 7 days after the second dose (secondary endpoint). The estimated efficacy against severe COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after dose 2 was 66.4%, with a large and negative lower bound CI (95% CI: -124.8%; 96.3%). Only a limited number of events occurred at the cut-off date of analysis (1 and 4 cases in the vaccine and placebo groups respectively). The posterior probability for the true vaccine efficacy ≥ 30% (74.29%) did not meet the pre-specified success criterion. Consequently, the efficacy against the severe disease across subgroups, notably certain populations at high-risk of severe COVID-19 cannot be estimated (elderly and subjects with comorbidities). 

Again, similiar to the Moderna report above. No reliable conclusion. Insufficient data. Cannot be estimated.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091383#Comment_119091383

What a weird poster you are on top of being ignorant on pretty much every topic you post on. Still claiming that Newton got his physics wrong?

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091567#Comment_119091567

Who is "us"? You've only been here 5 minutes? Well on this account anyway.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092353#Comment_119092353

Here's a guy who can't even quantify time and he expects to be taken seriously....oh you're about one lol

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091581#Comment_119091581

Any comment on what?

The childish insults cause you guys are upset?

They're very silly and indicative of the level of maturity that's behind your conspiracy theory beliefs.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119091126#Comment_119091126

Ok. All governments are lying about the vaccines. Are they all involved and planning this together? Are doctors and medical organisations also involved?

Sorry, but using VAERS data and similar to argue that it's raising red flags is a dishonest and false argument when the sites are plastered in disclaimers clearly stating that the data along cannot be used to argue it's raising red flags. It's not "shutting down discussion" to point out that's what the disclaimer warns about. Nor is it shutting down discussion to point out that Pat and his friends don't seem to have actually read the disclaimer or even knew about it until we pointed it out to them.

And great, so 323 was wrong and had a garbage argument. What other examples of them do you have?

buzzerxx

Russell L. Blaylock MD (Retired Neurosurgeon) - "The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history, characterized by official lies in an unending stream lead by government bureaucracies, medical associations, medical boards, the media, and international agencies. We have witnessed a long list of unprecedented intrusions into medical practice, including attacks on medical experts, destruction of medical careers among doctors refusing to participate in killing their patients and a massive regimentation of health care, led by non-qualified individuals with enormous wealth, power and influence." 

FULL ARTICLE: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062939/pdf/SNI-13-167.pdf

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119092696#Comment_119092696

And yet more mindless twitter dumping from yourself.

At least this time you're providing the source rather than just trying to pretend you wrote it.

Nothing of substance as usual though.