Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119352732#Comment_119352732

So two of the three claims you made to support your argument have been rebutted.

No, that's incorrect. My argument is that the death reports for covid vaccines are extraordinarily large compared to all other vaccines. This has not been rebutted. It is a fact. Obviously we can debate why that might be so, but the volume of death reports remains a fact.

You cannot demonstrate that the quantities were comparable.

There is no doubt that all vaccines administered since 1990 dwarf the amount covid vaccines administered thus far. Flu vaccines alone in that period amount to about 5 times that of covid vaccines. That's the point - the quantities of other vaccines are not comparable, they are far greater yet show a far lower number of reports of deaths.

You cannot demonstrate that the age profile of distribution and risk of death were comparable.

No I cannot demonstrate that the age profile of distribution was comparable. But again using flu vaccines, presumably they tend towards the elderly? The reports of deaths in flu vaccines are miniscule compared to covid vaccines.

And course I cannot demonstrate a risk of death either for flu vaccines or covid vaccines using VAERS data. That's not what it is collected for. But not being able to demonstrate a comparable risk of death does not change the fact that the number of reports of deaths is huge by comparison.

How does the manufacturer know if someone has died or had a severe reaction in order to submit this mandatory report? So the public awareness disclaimer applies here also.

OK that's a fair point assuming you mean the vaccine manufacturers are more likely to hear about deaths after increased public awareness. But I suspect that's more likely to apply to deaths occurring longer post vaccination. Deaths occurring within days of vaccination are likely to be largely unaffected by this.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119352769#Comment_119352769

Unsurprising that when proven factually wrong on all else

You seem to have forgotten I have not been proven factually wrong on the point that the regulators said the estimates of efficacy against severity were unreliable due to limited data.

Unless you're referring to something else?

When asked why the experts find no issue, offer no explanation.

The only person who asked me that question was KIngMob, who I ignore for the good of the thread.

But to respond to you on that point, that's exactly what I find puzzling, which is what I said in one of my first points on the VAERS data.

At the very least, in the interests of public confidence in vaccines, why are the experts not detailing and explaining the fact that the numbers of death reports in VAERS are colossal - over 86% of the total - compared to other vaccines and offering detailed explanations of why this is so? The general response seems to be focusing on you can't use VAERS to prove causality so there is nothing to see here.

86% of all death reports since 1990 does seem to be an awful lot to be in line with expectations. If this is true then it would suggest VAERS has hitherto been woefully inadequate as an early warning signal, because the extent of the underreporting has been colossal.

The only explanation I can offer is when doctors and experts are rightly worried about being reprimanded or discredited as anti-vaxxers, they are inclined to say nothing at all.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119352818#Comment_119352818

No. You said it was a red flag. You can continue to hold that opinion but don't pretend it is on the basis of evidence. And I have shown the basis for the claim is baseless and without evidence.

See how you changed the goal posts again every time.

"There is no doubt that all vaccines administered since 1990 dwarf the amount covid vaccines administered thus far."

But we're not talking about that. You keep changing the goalposts when caught out posting misinformation even though your comparison with flu vaccines has already been debunked.

We're talking about the vaccines available in the US reported under the same basis.

Were flu vaccines reported under the same basis? No.

Were flu vaccines available in the US distributed worldwide to the same extent as Covid? You have not shown this.

What quantities of vaccines available to children were included in the reporting figures? You don't have this data.

If you use the VAERS data as a red flag safety concern, you do not do so on the basis of evidence and it is contrary to the professional expert opinion of those whose job it is to monitor VAERS data and understand the numbers. You do so simply using the raw numbers.

The VAERS data specifically warns against AND I have demonstrated multiple reasons (reporting protocol, public awareness, quantity, age profile of recipients) why the raw numbers cannot be used to used to make conclusions about the safety of a vaccine.

You have failed to demonstrate that the numbers are comparable.

So you do accept there is no VAERS evidence or expert opinion which supports your opinion that conclusions about safety can be drawn from the numbers?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119352904#Comment_119352904

You haven't been able to factually prove it because you're misunderstanding what one sentence means, even though others and myself have explained it to you multiple times using very simplistic terms (again, if you promise to concede the point when evidence is provided, then evidence will be readily provided) :)

that's exactly what I find puzzling

So, are you with the experts on the approval data (including proven severity efficacy if you would actually read it properly...) but not for the VAERS data?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119352930#Comment_119352930

See how you changed the goal posts again every time.

This is why it's not worth engaging without a promise of backdown, as soon as the point is refuted, the poster spins off elsewhere, they've got themselves stuck in VAERS data again as they've been proven wrong everywhere.

But it also shows for all the "Just asking questions" and "puzzlement" and "I don't know" answers, that they have an anti-vax agenda and no amount of factual evidence will change that.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119352967#Comment_119352967

because you're misunderstanding what one sentence means

I'll remind you once again that you simply telling me I am misunderstanding something is not that same as factually proving me wrong.

It's just waffle. And expressly against the forum charter to boot.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119352930#Comment_119352930

The VAERS data specifically warns against AND I have demonstrated multiple reasons (reporting protocol, public awareness, quantity, age profile of recipients) why the raw numbers cannot be used to used to make conclusions about the safety of a vaccine.

I am making conclusions about red flags. I am not saying these numbers prove anything about the safety of the vaccines

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119353010#Comment_119353010

You are misunderstanding what secondary endpoint means, Fighting Tao already explained it to you, you are choosing to ignore it because you know it proves you factually wrong.

It is not against the forum charter to point out where you are factually wrong, pretending not to understand (or actually not understanding) explanations doesn't change this.

You can certainly say that it is your opinion that severity wasn't proven, but again, others could point out that you are factually wrong based on the trial data, you can still keep your opinion in that case but won't be able to represent it as fact.

And again, you haven't presented any evidence of your theory, hence it is on you, the theorist, to show some evidence rather than on others to refute it (that presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence). Misunderstanding a sentence is not evidence.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119353089#Comment_119353089

And again, you haven't presented any evidence of your theory, hence it is on you, the theorist, to show some evidence rather than on others to refute it (that presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence)

My theory is that at the time approval was granted the regulators - specifically the EMA - could not reliably evaluate estimates of efficacy against severe disease because sufficient data to do so was unavailable at that time.

The evidence I have shown repeatedly in support of this theory is quoting verbatim from the regulators approval reports (emphasis mine):

Pfizer

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).

Moderna

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

The case-driven readout and high VE translates into limited case numbers at present and resulting limited precision for estimating VE in several substrata including elderly, people with comorbidities and efficacy against severe COVID-19.

AstraZeneca

Although encouraging trends were observed, reliable efficacy estimates against severe COVID-19 and hospitalisation caused by COVID-19 could not be established due to the lack of a sufficient number of cases within the clinical studies. From the experience with other vaccines it is expected that prevention of severe COVID-19 will be achieved by preventing COVID-19 overall.

In addition to the regulators reports I quoted Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, in an article in the BMJ, October 2020, pre-approval (emphasis added):

But Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, told The BMJ that the company’s trial lacks adequate statistical power to assess those outcomes. “The trial is precluded from judging [hospital admissions], based on what is a reasonable size and duration to serve the public good here,” he said.

Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.

You have repeatedly told me that my theory is wrong, and that I have misunderstood all of the evidence above, but you have not in fact offered anything further than this other than some waffle about if I promise to admit that if I have understood this in advance you will provide the evidence of your theory that I am wrong.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am stating as fact that no reliable estimates of efficacy against severity could be established in the trials and the evidence of that fact is above.

Simply repeating time and again that this is "factually wrong, pretending not to understand (or actually not understanding)" is against the forum charter being repeatedly criticising the tone of the writing without attacking the substance of the argument and attacking the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument.

If, in your opinion, you think I am wrong, fine but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, as you put it, that presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

@Big Bag of Chips made the valid point that "circular arguments like "No it's not" "Yes it is" are boring to read and add nothing to the discussion". This destroys the thread and the discussion, but if I just ignore the fact you have provided absolutely nothing that disputes what the regulators said and move on, you later wheel this out as a counterargument to totally unrelated posts, as you did this morning:

Unsurprising that when proven factually wrong on all else, it's back to VAERS again, only to be proven factually wrong again

And we're back to criticising the tone of the writing without attacking the substance of the argument and attacking the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument.

It's insane.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119353089#Comment_119353089

But my question is, what's a reliable source of the truth ?

Because I always go back to agriculture systemic translocation weed killers.

They lied about that poison left right and center, and whomever did the research has as much brains as a plant, actually a plant is probably more intelligent.

Supposedly that chemical fades away within a minimal time frame, and it disappears. A beaver with a mallet up his arse now knows that the systemic translocation weed killers weren't as safe as we were being told.

I've seen plants mutate into awful looking things where that weed killer has been sprayed. Anything that grows there after is an absolute mutant.

You have posted that they're safe, ok it's obviously you're quite confident about that. That's ok.

But is there a tiny part of you that thinks hmmmmm I wonder am I right.

I'm not trying to catch you out, I'm just wondering do you trust the research wholeheartedly ?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119353409#Comment_119353409

All I'm saying is that if severity efficacy was proven in trial, that you will admit you were wrong on proven effect against severity and promise not to spin elsewhere.

The reason being that every other time you were proven wrong (before this mini obsession) you spun off elsewhere.

Given your track record, I don't believe that is unreasonable. Odyssey06 is also experiencing this behaviour from you on the VAERS data.

If you are truly seeking information and not pretending or actually "puzzled" by data and evidence, this would be acceptable for you.

If it is not acceptable for you, it means you are solely posting with an anti-vax agenda regardless of facts, which is fine, but very few will engage with you if that is your MO.

(and the quotes you included are not evidence, they're opinions).

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119353449#Comment_119353449

If you're going to make a case that the evidence is flawed, then that's fine, you also have to say why the evidence was flawed (or incomplete in a lot of cases) or why it's being covered up.

In this case, the poster is using the data in some cases to mean one thing and then ignoring that same data for some other point, or ignoring information about how and why the data is collected. It's the reason why someone like Markus would refute all scientific data, you can't build a cogent theory by being selective or ignoring the process.

(I would also note your weedkiller evidence is entirely anecdotal, we have farmers in the family who use it who don't see issues, while also have produced and sold our own organic weedkillers and understand how they work and their limitations, my summers used to be spent filling and packaging the organic stuff, but again, this is an anecdote and can be dismissed by anyone).

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119353456#Comment_119353456

(and the quotes you included are not evidence, they're opinions).

Evidence of the regulators opinion that they could not reliably evaluate estimates of efficacy against severe disease because sufficient data to do so was unavailable at that time.

And evidence of the Moderna chief medical officer's opinion that the trials were not large enough to reliably evaluate estimates of efficacy against severe disease.

I find their opinion credible. If you don't, fine, entirely up to you. But that's very different to saying I have been factually proven wrong.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119353760#Comment_119353760

And if efficacy was proven, are you willing to accept that you are factually proven wrong?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119354054#Comment_119354054

It wasn't proven. According to the regulators. That's the theory and I have posted the evidence to back it up. You've posted nothing to contradict that.

All if this "if" stuff is just waffle. Stating the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119352904#Comment_119352904

So you're ignoring the point I ask. Typical.

Your explanation is that all experts are not raising concerns because they are reprimanded or discredited. This sounds like a conspiracy to me. And it's a very silly implausible explanation for why there's no experts who agree with you.

How does this account for experts like for example the fellow in charge of VAERS who directly contradict you opinion? Why would he do this if he was just afraid of being reprimanded?

But of course that isn't the only explanation. There's another one you don't want to consider.

That your opinion is simply wrong.

bad2thebone

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119353500#Comment_119353500

I would also note your weedkiller evidence is entirely anecdotal, we have farmers in the family who use it who don't see issues, while also have produced and sold our own organic weedkillers and understand how they work and their limitations, my summers used to be spent filling and packaging the organic stuff, but again, this is an anecdote and can be dismissed by anyone).

Well that's your opinion and we both differ with our anecdotal assumptions.

I've a degree in horticulture and have been keeping up to date with various chemicals and their uses,dangers and benefits, since 1995 so I think I could possibly be ahead of you by a long way.

Anyhow I'm going off track, so what you're observing about someone like Marcus is he's getting numbers and scenarios mixed up If you both had a graph or something to work off maybe that would be easier and ye could point out where you are both not meeting where its right.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119354214#Comment_119354214

Bloody hell, it just needs a simple yes/no if efficacy is proven, you restating an opinion with no evidence doesn't change that.

What will happen when you are presented with evidence is that you will spin off and claim something else, this is to stop you doing that (again, for the umpteenth time) as you are committing to respecting the evidence and conceding the point (you can of course claim the evidence was falsified if you wish).

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119354387#Comment_119354387

I've a degree in horticulture and have been keeping up to date with various chemicals and their uses,dangers and benefits, since 1995 so I think I could possibly be ahead of you by a long way.

You'd be wrong on that, anecdotally of course :)

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119354919#Comment_119354919

What will happen when you are presented with evidence is that you will spin off and claim something else,

I've been like a broken record on this point through our disagreement.

Your claims that I have spun off to claim something else in the face of the irrefutable evidence you have presented is just another falsehood you persist with.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119355017#Comment_119355017

So you will concede the point if evidence of positive efficacy is presented?

(you are of course ignoring the post I made documenting the different areas you spun off into when proven wrong in other areas, and as if to prove this, you will comment on this sentence rather than saying you will concede in front of evidence)

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119355070#Comment_119355070

What will happen when you are presented with evidence is that you will spin off and claim something else,

I have not spun off and claimed anything else. My point has consistently been that in the approval reports the regulators stated there was insufficient data to reliably estimate efficacy against severe covid and I have quoted them verbatim stating exactly that.

Irrespective of your belief and evidence of positive efficacy against severity, is this true or not? Did the regulators say this or not? What we are arguing about is that simple.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119355921#Comment_119355921

So you're abandoning your claim that positive efficacy for severity wasn't shown during the trials?

And it's "here's what some people said about efficacy against severity" before the trial results were available?

You see the difference between the two?

Remembering that proven efficacy against severity during the trials also refutes your point that they got "lucky" with the vaccines post trial and approval.

And bear in mind, this is not my belief, this is evidence that was already posted that you missed and I will have to go back and explain to you and then you will have to agree that efficacy against severe disease was proven during trials.

Are you OK with that happening and wiling to accept that your "lucky" claim is refuted? (when the evidence is explained of course). Again, only a simple yes/no is needed.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356042#Comment_119356042

Here's what some people said?!! Not just some people. What are you on about. I am talking about the regulators tasked with reviewing the trial data and deciding whether or not to grant the emergency approval!

My claim was always about what the regulators said about the trials. That's what's important. Sure vaccine manufacturers may well have said X, Y and Z look at our new miracle drug, but in the context of why they were approved that doesn't count for sh*t.

You appear to be abandoning your claim that you agreed with the regulators' opinion that the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials. Now you are just dismissing their statements as simple opinions rather than evidence. Talk about spinning off in a new direction.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356085#Comment_119356085

As said, I am quite clear, data against severity was extremely comprehensively proven in the trials, I am not squirming away and hiding what I am saying. Again, if you are prepated to acknowledge the data, it will be pointed out to you.

However, are you now saying that your "lucky" comment was based purely on those comments that were made before the trial results were available? (I mean, there is a different reason they were said that wasn't anything to do with luck and based off trial endpoints, but that's a different conversation).

This is a first, you are now spinning away from your argument about the trials not being conclusive before the evidence was presented. You must be getting dizzy.

This is precisely why the parameters need to be agreed before the explanation occurs, you are further cornering yourself.

Do you accept that the trial results show that efficacy against severity was proven? Another yes/no for you to try and ignore I guess.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356157#Comment_119356157

You must be getting dizzy.

At least we can agree on that. I doubt I'm the only one, on the off chance anybody else is trying to follow this.

Do you accept that the trial results show that efficacy against severity was proven? Another yes/no for you to try and ignore I guess.

No. I have seen no evidence of that.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356171#Comment_119356171

No. I have seen no evidence of that.

If irrefutable evidence of it is presented, will you accept it? (and drop the lucky claim based on trial results, you can maintain it for pre-trial result comments if you wish).

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356202#Comment_119356202

And will this irrefutable evidence also explain why the EMA said that the data on severity was limited, insufficient etc and that the estimates of efficacy against severity were unreliable?

The kucky comment was made in the context of how things turned out real world - ie unlucky with the trial proven efficacy against infection, but lucky with the unproven efficacy against severity that turned out well.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356285#Comment_119356285

It will explain what was said in the approval document for the Pfizer vaccine (which Fighting Tao also explained incidentally).

but lucky with the unproven efficacy

This bit wasn't lucky, as you may soon see.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356326#Comment_119356326

But it will not explain why the EMA said of Moderna - "limited case numbers at present and resulting limited precision" comments and of AstraZeneca reliable estimates "could not be established due to the lack of a sufficient number of cases"?

Were they wrong?