Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119198001#Comment_119198001

I posted the section from the approval document that you took your quote from, verbatim, including the effect against severity of disease, I stupidly tried to be as open as possible and stop any hiding of data, I literally posted the table to try and stop idiots from veering off in another direction, but it looks like idiots have done so anyway.

The data is there, verbatim posted earlier, the table shows lots of positive effects of the vaccines on day 1, the text before it on the limitations also shows the positive effects of the vacccines.

Everything you are posting shows both the positive effects and the excellent safety profile,

You again have nowhere to go and are spinning out about a table I only included to be thorough from the document you linked everyone to. A table which references some of the data from the limitations section.

Again, this is bizarre to watch.

You are literally obsessing over a comment I made a week ago and have now proven categorically to be true, and you still don't get it.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119198124#Comment_119198124

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/dec/31/golden-girls-star-betty-white-dies-aged-99

DAMN YOUUUUUUUU COVVIIIIDDDDDDD !!!!!!!!!

Fighting Tao

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119198124#Comment_119198124

People have heart attacks all the time. Boatbuilders die young like that quite regularly. You don’t seem capable of thinking for yourself. One of my friends died from a brain hermitage aged 12. I’d guess that if covid was around back then you’d have blamed the vaccine too.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119198001#Comment_119198001

People who genuinely want information don't come to conspiracy theory forums. You aren't here for genuine reasons.

Also I knew shenanigans were going on, you are a rename/rebrand of "Schmittel", who was posting copious amounts of "I don't get it" anti-vax material here before.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119198138#Comment_119198138

I literally posted the table to try and stop idiots from veering off in another direction, but it looks like idiots have done so anyway.

Simple question - do you have any clue what the data in the table you posted represented? If so what is it?

I am stating unambiguously that it was Vaccine Efficacy for prevention of covid in two groups a) all ages - First COVID-19 occurrence from 7 First COVID-19 occurrence from 7 days after Dose 2, without prior SARSCOV-2, overall and b) First COVID-19 occurrence from 7 First COVID-19 occurrence from 7 days after Dose 2, without prior SARSCOV-2, Patients aged ≥65

Do you think my interpretation is correct?

If I am correct what does this have to do with the the efficacy on severe Covid?

If I am wrong no doubt you'll relish the opportunity to "explain" why.

Are you prepared to answer the simple question without deflecting?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119198207#Comment_119198207

Go back to your original quote from the approval document, quote the next sentence.

The data in the table is described in the title of the table, which you helpfully posted.

Again, I posted it so that you wouldn't accuse people of hiding data, that you don't understand the severity data and CI is on you not anyone else.

And blows your "they were lucky with vaccines" argument to smithereens.

So, what is your sole argument now? (or are you now obsessing over a table, like you obsessed over my post from a week ago?).

MyLove4Satan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119197512#Comment_119197512

So for that decade you are fine with everyone - including yourself - being a lab rat for a vaccine that was rushed out for a virus that Bill Gates now even admits was only basically a cold that affected the very, very old?

Do you have any idea how - when all the propaganda surrounding this event is removed - utterly insane your 'rational' standpoint is?

Just to add, I am not anti-vax and I am well aware vaccines have been an incredible tool. But I would not get into an airplane that wasn't fully tested either. You faith in major corporations and their shareholders is touching to me.

buzzerxx

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKpnLda6hS4

shillyshilly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119196011#Comment_119196011

comebacks and posting evidence aren't your thing at all, are they?

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119198269#Comment_119198269

Well I didn't partake in the experiment myself, and my gut feeling told me to steer clear.

I mentioned on the thread what Bill Gates admitted about covid being comparable to a common cold now.

I'm not antivaxx myself and in the early day's of the pandemic or whatever you'd call it. I recall the expert's saying that it only really effects the old and vulnerable. So that was good enough for me to trust my immune system. So far so good I'm not aware that I had covid. Never had a close contact either.

I've had to use pharmaceuticals in the past especially for dental pain. For some reason I can handle back pain and tummy pains reasonable enough. But when my teeth flaired up from too much fizzies and in the past or a broken filling. I'd take morphine if I had to. No qualms about that. I'd eat them if I had to.

Hunt_Morris

It sounds interesting!

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119198228#Comment_119198228

Go back to your original quote from the approval document, quote the next sentence.

Sure:

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%).

Based on my admittedly lnexpert understanding of the CI, I think the approvers view that no reliable conclusion could be drawn was based on the large and negative lower bound CI. No doubt you'll relish the opportunity to demonstrate your expert understanding if I am wrong.

I'm not accusing you of hiding data, I've never accused anybody of hiding data. Spinning it yes, but hiding no.

I am stating as a fact that you posted data you believed to be showing vaccine efficacy on preventing severe Covid when it was in fact data showing vaccine efficacy preventing Covid - a very significant and foolish error in the context of the discussion we were having.

I'm also stating as a fact that it had to be pointed out to you multiple times before you realised this.

The only positive in that is that it confirms the error was due to utter stupidity rather than any sort of deliberate misrepresentation.

The only thing you have blown to smithereens is your own credibility on this subject or any other.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119198322#Comment_119198322

No I'm terrible at comebacks, and I'm not one bit funny, goes with my username. It's quite perceptible why you posted that comment.

shillyshilly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119198341#Comment_119198341

how about the evidence part? or do we just need to take your anecdotes at face value?

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119198361#Comment_119198361

Two years isn't enough time to get long term data. I'll let time take care of that.

What's your idea of long term data and results for the covid vaccines ?

We all know they were rolled out at warp speed as they said in America.

But there's no long term results.

shillyshilly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119198373#Comment_119198373

I think there is enough long term data... there is a misnomer where people see "it took 10 years to develop x vaccine"...

the majority of that time is spent sitting around waiting on data to be reviewed and requests for the next phase to be allowed to progress... and in the far majority of cases, it's securing funds to get to the next phase...

Phases 1 to 3 are usually covered in a few months each... as we saw with the COVID vaccines, this review process was expedited, and shown this could work....

with regards to the data from it, phases 1-3 usually have a 1 month, 6 month and 12 month follow up.... if there are no negative responses, no further follow ups are done.... (follow ups don't stop the process either, you can have phase 3 trials while phase 1 follow ups are still being completed, you don't have to wait)

Phase 4 trials are where the long term studies are done, and we are seeing the results from them since the start of 2022. Phase 4 trials usually only last 2 years max if no issues have been reported, as regulatory reporting means new approvals need to be commissioned in time for year 5 of marketing (i.e. year 3 they are starting the re-reg process all over again).

From the various COVID vaccine studies (100's of thousands presently, they are the most studied vaccines ever) there is more than enough data out there at the moment to find causality to any issues that may pop up.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119198648#Comment_119198648

Thanks for a very understandable well presented different phases of data etc...Despite all the slagging off and banter I give credit where credit is due.

It's easy to understand and you laid it all out well. Thanks for spending the time to do that.

Despite my attitude, I do appreciate when someone is helpful.

Thanks Shilly

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119197560#Comment_119197560

The only people claiming that anyone ever stated that the vaccines were 100% safe are conspiracy theorists claiming that vaccine manufacturers previously stated that they were 100% safe.

Not sure how I can explain it more clearly for you?

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119199196#Comment_119199196

You've explained it clearly enough. Thanks

MyLove4Satan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119198324#Comment_119198324

fair enough I can't argue with any of this.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119199168#Comment_119199168

The thing is, I'm pretty sure you're gonna parrot the claim again regardless.

shillyshilly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119199168#Comment_119199168

this has been covered numerous times in here, but know doubt it'll need explaining again in a few days.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119199545#Comment_119199545

You'll have to keep a copy somewhere. A template or sticky.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119199525#Comment_119199525

Parrot what claim ?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119198332#Comment_119198332

As repeated, multiple times, the table was only included for completeness as the paragraph including the measured affected against severe disease with a high CI was already posted twice at that point, that was also the sentence you constantly left out saying that no data on severe disease was available. The interval for severe disease quickly narrowed with other trials and with real world data (coming from Israel initially) driving it to the 90% range as more cases were observed and measured.

Your initial point (are you still sticking by it?) was that they got lucky with effect against severe disease.

This is despite you posting quite clearly the very high confidence very high effect against all symptoms and the (bit you were hiding) 66% result against severe disease with wide CI that the vaccines were approved under.

So you now need to find another attack point on the vaccines. And as the document you are using pointed out, there were no safety concerns.

It's also the last time I'll post completeness of data to one of your requests and everyone can laugh at you as you spin off into random directions of misunderstanding.

Now, is there any other old posts of mine you want to obsess over?

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119199672#Comment_119199672

The one about vaccines for covid having been rushed through, normal timescales not followed, steps missed in the trials etc.

This was all covered in multiple news articles I remember reading back in early 2020 where it was explained how the normal timescale was being speeded up, mostly by skipping the "can we have some more funding please" stages which on their own took years off the development time

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119201090#Comment_119201090

I'm getting tired of posting about the vaccines to be honest. Shilly was able to lay out the process etc

Probably the only one here who was helpful in getting through all the jargon and posting in layman's terms helps.

So I'd say moving on from the vaccines is a good call for me.

Once I have information, what's the point in twoing and frowning.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119198269#Comment_119198269

The experts who made the vaccines were happy for themselves, and their families and friends and colleagues to be "lab rats". That's because they understand what they are dealing with.

Unlike those individuals who don't and portray them as "Dr Evil" type characters in conspiracies they can't explain. In a pandemic they don't understand with a virus they can't grasp, with measures and restrictions they rail against for reasons they can't articulate.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119200707#Comment_119200707

As repeated, multiple times, the table was only included for completeness as the paragraph including the measured affected against severe disease with a high CI was already posted twice at that point

🤣

It's also the last time I'll post completeness of data to one of your requests and everyone can laugh at you as you spin off into random directions of misunderstanding.

🤣

So now we're at only posted for completeness?! You knew it was not the data relating to severe disease all along?! Whereas previously it was:

the data posted shows the effect from the trials along with the confidence intervals you misunderstood,

and:

then posted all of the section so you wouldn't lamp off and get other things wrong (which you did anyway), then posted the table with the data for that section,

Erm - the data in the table is from a completely different section! I think you still have not realised this.

and on you go...

... very happy that you posted the title as the main intention was to try and stop you claiming random other things, which you have anyway.

Remember, you won't admit anything, you will go as far as your messed up understanding will go and then concede by bouncing off to other topics, the entire point of showing the data is that we all know how much of a fool you have been, and that has stayed pretty consistent throughout.

Now, back to the data, and note that I specifically highlighted the 66.4% for you, so not sure what you're doing there, but that effect was observed during the phase 3 trial against severe disease, so we had data from day 1.

🤣 remember each of these posts is a reply to me pointing out you had posted the wrong data, yet you are unable to understand it, all while quoting figures that you specifically highlighted that are not in the table!!!

I tried again to spell out your mistake, spoon feeding you as it were:

This data is nothing to do with severity - it is all cases of Covid. You cited this data as backing up what was said in section 3.3, this data relates to section 3.2.

Even after it has been pointed out to you I am now not sure if you even realise that you're using the wrong data to back up your argument, which is a measure of your understanding of this. But it blindingly obvious.

And your response to this?!!?:

And we're now into an argument about the table being used which clearly shows the numbers involved (and the data and CI, the only thing unlisted is the upper and lower bounds which I had already quoted).

And again I pointed out your mistake, and again hilariously you made an even bigger fool of yourself:

Note the 66.3 (the decimal .3 might be off, you can argue if it isn't .3) in the table, the upper and lower bound are listed in the paragraph above, also quoted.

So although you noticed that the figures we're different, you'd didn't actually stop to wonder why?! And after I pointed it out to you, you still didn't realise, your response was:

For my next trick, hometruths will get some more approval data wrong in a way everybody but hometruths understands!

🤣

And now eventually you've realised the error, instead of acknowledging it you say: "the table was only included for completeness"

LOL! You say you only posted it for completeness, but even after all this I think you actually still have no idea what the data you posted actually indicated!!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119201528#Comment_119201528

Dude. You aren't convincing anyone. Not even conspiracy theorists.

Why do you keep wasting your time?