Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

King Mob · 18-07-2022 11:02pm

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

He won't answer this because it would lock him down to a position he can't backtrack out of.

hometruths · 18-07-2022 11:12pm

For the benefit of KingMob:

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.

If irrefutable evidence of it is presented, will you accept it?

Yes.

Let's see the irrefutable evidence.

astrofool · 18-07-2022 11:26pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356705#Comment_119356705

Remember, this is across multiple usernames and spinning and squirming around to different arguments (back to VAERS again, really?) and multiple posters, including myself being extremely patient and explaining and presenting data, only to be met with puzzlement and "I don't know" JAQ'ing off answers.

So, let's tackle the comments first.

The trials primary goals were to establish safety and efficacy of 50% against symptomatic COVID. Once those endpoints were reached, the trials would finish, data collated and presented for approval and approval granted.

So they were correct, they weren't running the trials specifically for severe cases. Why? Because they know by reducing symptomatic cases by X% that severe cases would also be reduced significantly, that's how vaccines work, have always worked and will continue to work. Had this not been the case, it would have been a whole brand new area of science to study. This is why all the comments were made, they weren't specifically after severity data, no one was arguing otherwise.

However, that's not irrefutable, there is wiggle room for anti-vaxxers in there "yes, science is wrong, magic happens".

However, the vaccines performed above expectations, 95% symptomatic reduction was much higher than even the optimistic projections and because this was so high, it meant that data on severity could be gathered and proven at the same time and was.

The next bit is important, check your sources, do your own work rather than letting twitter and facebook do it as you may have avoided this (I mean, not understanding how to narrow a CI after so many posts, mocking others who present their findings, not being able to calculate a simple CFR?).

I posted the hselibrary data on severity.

Go back and check it, find where that data comes from, if you can't find it (and do say where you looked) say so, and we can go to the next step.

The next step will be proven efficacy but a little bit of wiggle room that an anti-vaxxer will try and sit into.

The step after that will be proven efficacy with no wiggle room.

After that it will be spinning out again. It should be acceptance that the vaccines worked as expected and that they're safe.

But it won't be.

It might even be a new username.

hometruths · 18-07-2022 11:47pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356769#Comment_119356769

Just so I am clear, is this is your irrefutable evidence that data on severity was proven in the trials:

95% efficacy in preventing symptomatic infection:

meant that data on severity could be gathered and proven at the same time and it was.

Are you by any chance going to share this data that was gathered and proven?

astrofool · 18-07-2022 11:51pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356846#Comment_119356846

This is your next step, as explained, it was posted previously, once I'm satisfied you've been unable to find it with your own effort (or actually found it) then the next set of data can be accessed (and less of the mocking tone, do you really think I'd be referencing the 95% efficacy against symptomatic infection? You saw another poster pay up on a losing bet, you should have learned something by now) :)

I posted the hselibrary data on severity.

Go back and check it, find where that data comes from, if you can't find it (and do say where you looked) say so, and we can go to the next step.

hometruths · 19-07-2022 12:12am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356859#Comment_119356859

I can’t find any HSelibrary data on severity that is irrefutable evidence the data on severity was proven in clinical trials.

i have googled extensively in an extremely comprehensive search.

can I now proceed to the next step?

King Mob · 19-07-2022 12:12am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356705#Comment_119356705

Yay finally. Not so hard is it?

Now could you actually address the points I made to you for my benefit?

Why do no experts agree with you?

Why do experts including the guy in charge of VAERS disagree with you?

Vague handwaving about "being afraid of being reprimanded" is not an answer to this.

astrofool · 19-07-2022 11:39am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119356923#Comment_119356923

Kindly show some of your attempted Google searches, this only works when you find the answer and work it out (I've no doubt you won't understand how it is irrefutable, but maybe you'll surprise everyone), as we have shown numerous times across the thread.

It is the top hit and to give you a hint, it was posted on this thread just slightly over a month ago.

Now your penchant is going to be to try and lash out, but we're on an enlightenment journey here :)

hometruths · 19-07-2022 12:37pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119358139#Comment_119358139

In the interests of establishing what is right rather than who is right, I'll humour you on our enlightenment journey.

I found the hse data on severity you posted earlier in the thread:

https://hselibrary.ie/what-is-the-efficacy-of-covid-19-vaccinations-in-preventing-disease-transmission-to-the-non-vaccinated

The information you reference appears to me to have come from the clinical trials as submitted to the regulators eg Pfizer: "Nine of the 10 severe cases that occurred during the study were in the placebo group."

astrofool · 19-07-2022 12:47pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119358447#Comment_119358447

Perfect, and what is the source of that data? You can find it on NEJM and post the efficacy on severity from there.

hometruths · 19-07-2022 1:02pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119358502#Comment_119358502

I've already told you - as far as I know the source of the data the hse are quoting is the manufacturers clinical trials.

astrofool · 19-07-2022 1:04pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119358588#Comment_119358588

Yep, now you can find the trial data you're relying on and post the severity data :) As said, it's on NEJM.

hometruths · 19-07-2022 1:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119358600#Comment_119358600

So you said you'd provide this evidence if I agreed to accept it, if it was irrefutable. I said I agreed.

And you didn't post it. You posted some more waffle in which you said of the hselibrary data:

Go back and check it, find where that data comes from, if you can't find it (and do say where you looked) say so, and we can go to the next step.

The next step will be proven efficacy but a little bit of wiggle room that an anti-vaxxer will try and sit into.

So I posted the hselibrary data, and said where I thought it came from.

And guess what? Still no proven efficacy.

Now apparently the "next step" is: Yep, now you can find the trial data you're relying on and post the severity data :) As said, it's on NEJM.

And what will be the next step after that? And after that. You say this is your idea of "patiently explaining the data" but you're actually just trolling.

Heres the thing: I'm not the one relying on the trial data. I'm relying on the approval reports and the statements of the regulators about the trial data. The experts who say the severity data is insufficient and the estimates are unreliable. That's what I have quoted as irrefutable evidence to back up my claim.

You say they are wrong and your theory is the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials.

So now you can find the trial data you're relying on and post the severity data.

astrofool · 19-07-2022 2:06pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119358708#Comment_119358708

The next step is to post the severity data from trials showing irrefutably that there was proven impact on severity. The horse has been lead to water.

(I would note, that most other posters would have been able to go straight from the approval documentation to trial data and see for themselves, this is a teachable moment for you).

hometruths · 19-07-2022 2:15pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119359065#Comment_119359065

Fair enough, I am all for teachable moments so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not just trolling.

So if I post the data the hselibrary is referring to from the clinical trial, are you saying that this is the irrefutable evidence that protection against severe disease was proven?

And if necessary you'll explain why you think it is irrefutable evidence that the data on severity was extremely comprehensive and proven in massive trials?

Fr0g · 19-07-2022 2:21pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119349663#Comment_119349663

No, that would be circular logic. Circular reasoning is when someone uses a source that doesn't prove anything to back up their own claim. A fact check cannot be used as a source for another fact check.

After reading a few fact checking sites and articles and seeing the obvious flaws in their sources and logic I decided to discount them altogether. "The Journal" fact checking is particularly laughable.

Fighting Tao · 19-07-2022 2:25pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119359161#Comment_119359161

I’m not going to engage where there appears to be wilful ignoring of facts. However, I will say that circular reasoning is circular logic. They are the same thing.

Fr0g · 19-07-2022 2:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119349871#Comment_119349871

You're describing exactly how it shouldn't be used. There are more deaths listed than all of the other entries for all other drugs combined in its history. Yet the vaxxed want to simply dismiss it as if it's suddenly not important or not reliable or not "whatever reason I can come up with"

Why was it used in the past? Why before COVID was a drug pulled if it caused only 50 deaths?

If there is risk/benefit then why were people coerced and mandated into taking it?

astrofool · 19-07-2022 2:37pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119359116#Comment_119359116

It was explained already, but as you are seeing, I'm patient, it will be explained again.

I'm already detecting the pedantry coming to the fore again to try and avoid the inevitable conclusion, let's see if it continues.

But anyway, there is one line for data from the clinical trials on severity including the CI that you can find.

hometruths · 19-07-2022 2:46pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119359284#Comment_119359284

No pedantry, I was just checking there weren't going to be more steps after this. Happy to post this if it is genuinely the big reveal.

Here is the relevant data referenced in the bit you quoted re Pfizer - Nine of the 10 severe cases that occurred during the study were in the placebo group - from the hselibrary:

Table S5 is from the supplementary appendix - https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577/suppl_file/nejmoa2034577_appendix.pdf

Full study can be found here: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577

robinph · 19-07-2022 2:48pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119359219#Comment_119359219

So which items exactly from the VAERS data is it that you are concerned about and have been able to show are caused by the vaccines?

If it is this concerning to you, and you were able to spot some pattern ahead of the people who actually analyse this for a job, then you should easily be able to point out the items in there which were caused by vaccines.

King Mob · 19-07-2022 2:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119359219#Comment_119359219

But no one is arguing that the VAERS data isn't important or isn't reliable.

We're arguing that your grifters are misrepresenting it to you and you're just repeating that.

The VAERS data cannot be used to make any conclusions about the safety of the vaccine.

Fr0g · 19-07-2022 2:54pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119351246#Comment_119351246

Maybe you could ask the NZ police department why in light of hundreds of cases put to them they are refusing to investigate these alarming coincidences

https://nzdsos.com/2022/05/24/deaths-following-c-19-vaccination/

Fr0g · 19-07-2022 3:07pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119359360#Comment_119359360

You are missing the point. I am not qualified to analyse individual cases. You must know this in which case you're just being glib or facetious. Anyone using VAERS has to identify themselves and if found to be submitting wrong or misleading data is subject to fines or imprisonment. So hardly to be taken lightly. I don't think anyone using it is deliberately trying to undermine the vaccines. I think they mostly are likely to have genuine concerns.

astrofool · 19-07-2022 3:11pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119359352#Comment_119359352

Yep, and now we have proven efficacy from the trials of between 20.1 and 99.7% with a 95% CI with a VE of 88.9% using Clopper and Pearson.

Now, you will try and exist within that wide margin, although proven (refuting the "lucky" claim).

Do the same for the Moderna trial data :)

You are currently at step 1 of these 3:

The next step will be proven efficacy but a little bit of wiggle room that an anti-vaxxer will try and sit into.

The step after that will be proven efficacy with no wiggle room.

After that it will be spinning out again. It should be acceptance that the vaccines worked as expected and that they're safe.

Fr0g · 19-07-2022 3:16pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119359392#Comment_119359392

And I keep telling you that it is used as a safety signal which should be investigated. There are more than enough examples to go on.

Who exactly are my "grifters". This is just a figment of your imagination. This is genetic fallacy, a straw man and ad hominem all rolled into one. You keep getting away with making these ridiculous claims. It's almost like you believe there is some kind of conspiracy against you.

Try to get out more.

Fr0g · 19-07-2022 3:18pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119359190#Comment_119359190

Have it whatever way you want. My point stands.

hometruths · 19-07-2022 3:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119359490#Comment_119359490

Ah, so there are more steps. Who'd have thought it.

Before we get on to Moderna I'm not sure how this data does "explain what was said in the approval document for the Pfizer vaccine (which Fighting Tao also explained incidentally)" - i.e the bit that I misunderstood according to you?