Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

moonage

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119511756#Comment_119511756

I think you naively believe that drug regulators give an impartial, unbiased assessment of drugs before they come to market.

The fact is that drug regulators have been bought and paid for by the companies that they are supposed to regulate.

The BMJ had a recent feature on it:

From FDA to MHRA: are drug regulators for hire?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119513000#Comment_119513000

That is not a balanced accurate summary of the earlier discussion and reflects your own biased view of it.

@relax carry on

I suggest you read the posts on this aspect to form your own opinion.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058180492/covid-vaccines-thread-banned-users-in-first-post/p350

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119513013#Comment_119513013

Batacharia, Mccullough?..

The Australian lab that sequenced it and said it had been engineered..

And yes, they were right..

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119513013#Comment_119513013

This is another thing that crops up and is an example of vaccine fanatics arguing black is white.

It is often claimed on here that the vaccines are proven to be safe and effective, and as all credible experts agree with this opinion, hence it must be true, nobody has been silenced on the subject, thus if they had concerns they would have spoken out and nobody credible has spoken out etc etc.

But this totally and demonstrably untrue. Many have been silenced and many have also spoken out, and it is beginning to increase.

Many medical regulatory bodies issued directives ordering members of the profession they regulate to toe the line. Just one example is Australia, which led to the formation of AMPS:

The newly formed Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS), operating as an alternative to the Australian Medical Association (AMA), is standing up for medical transparency, to protect our patients, and ensure open scientific debate.

Our AMPS members are refusing to be silent, even under threats to our registrations.

On vaccines specifically they say:

The comparative lack of vital long-term data (present for other vaccines and medical treatments) is lacking in Covid vaccines – making it difficult to justify statements such as proven safe and effective. ‘Assumed to the best of our knowledge’ would be more accurate.

This problem is highlighted by changing promises related to Covid vaccines, which began as ‘you won’t get sick and it will stop transmission’ but now manufacturers and medical bodies have had to admit, due to overwhelming physical evidence in patients, that Covid vaccines do not stop transmission and many people still get sick and die. These revelations call into question the validity of extraordinary measures placed on people for over two years.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/08/the-end-of-medicine/

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119513014#Comment_119513014

OK. So you're claiming that the regulators have been bought off for the covid vaccines.

Who exactly was bought off? Who bought them off?

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119512327#Comment_119512327

Lol wut?

What gives you the impression I'm "emotional"?

Any chance you'll be going back to your claims that the vaccine has a clear link to a decrease in fertility?

Cause the last study you posted directly stated there wasn't a link. I'm still very curious to know if you actually read the paper before post it.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119512629#Comment_119512629

No one holds this position.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119513051#Comment_119513051

Another big claim made without evidence.

Meanwhile the issue is actually looked into and discussed in public.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3

For new readers of the thread perhaps you can clarify your view on vaccines, psychological operations, 5g and Bill Gates as per earlier posts on the thread.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119513042#Comment_119513042

So I asked you:

For the avoidance of doubt do you consider mandatory vaccination to be coercion. Yes or no?

and kernkraft replied:

nope... because mandatory does not equate to compulsory.... you still have the choice not to take any vaccine.

As I said at the time - peak Emperor's New Clothes

It is now an even better example of vaccine fanaticism - highlighting the revisionist cry of "That never happened!":

"Coercion was used in the vaccine rollout"

"That never happened!"

"Sure it did, what about mandatory vaccinations?"

"nope... because mandatory does not equate to compulsory.... you still have the choice not to take any vaccine."

Some time later...

"People argued on here mandatory vaccinations are not coercive"

"That never happened!"

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119512424#Comment_119512424

You keep claiming this, but you keep ignoring what you've already quoted.

They are also using the research and data gathered for the previous version of the vaccine.

As you've said you've nothing to show that the new version of the vaccine is significantly different to make all of the evidence of the previous vaccines safety and effectiveness irrelevant.

I asked you to explain why they are being allowed to apply for emergency approval, and as always when you're asked a difficult question that exposes your beliefs, you dodge.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119513144#Comment_119513144

As I said the original posts need to be read in context and not rely on lines quoted out of context. Paying particular attention to whether Ireland was being discussed specifically, pressure v coercion and the strict legal meaning of mandatory, compulsory or coercive versus its general use.

kernkraft500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119513144#Comment_119513144

are you still going on about that :-D :-D

we get it, you don't understand words in general language can be synonymous, but in legal terminology can have different definitive and unambiguous meanings

patnor1011

Trust the science schtick being called in question. Mainly when you look at who and why is making and publishing "studies" (some of which did not even happen)

Opinion peace of former BMJ editor.

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515167#Comment_119515167

Already been posted.

Which specific studies about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines have been fraudulent? Cause this editorial is not talking about any of the vaccine trials or research papers.

Is the argument that "if some studies are fraudulent, therefore all must be"?

Cause if so, you might not want to think about all of the conspiracy theories and anti-vaxx claims that have been proven wrong...

Also, I'm curious, isn't the BMJ part of the conspiracy here? Or are they not now they've published this one article that seems to be doing the rounds in anti-vaxxer twitter this week?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119511407#Comment_119511407

So it was not bullshit after all, according to Fortune:

But unlike previous applications, Pfizer and Moderna's filings are missing one piece of information: clinical trial data of their vaccines.

That’s deliberate. In June, the FDA asked vaccine manufacturers to start developing BA.4 and BA.5 boosters for a fall vaccination campaign. To help the drugmakers hit that fall deadline, the FDA said the companies did not need to include data from a clinical trial.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/an-fda-change-to-vaccine-authorization-allowed-pfizer-and-moderna-to-apply-for-ba5-booster-approval-without-key-data/ar-AA112B9b

hometruths

And not everyone agrees that the mice data idea is a good idea:

For the first time, the FDA is planning to base its decision about whether to authorize new boosters on studies involving mice instead of humans.

"For the FDA to rely on mouse data is just bizarre, in my opinion," says John Moore, an immunologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. "Mouse data are not going to be predictive in any way of what you would see in humans."

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/08/18/1117778748/whats-behind-the-fdas-controversial-strategy-for-evaluating-new-covid-boosters

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515448#Comment_119515448

But as always, you leave out the context of your quote:

But others defend the approach, arguing that the country has had enough experience with the vaccines at this point to be confident the shots are safe and that there's not enough time to wait for data from human studies.

"We have 500 people a day dying of coronavirus right now. Those numbers sadly might very well rise in the fall and the winter. The question is: 'Can we do something better?'" says Dr. Ofer Levy, a pediatrics and infectious disease researcher at Harvard Medical School who also advises the FDA. "And I think the answer is: 'We can, by implementing this approach.'"

And:

The new booster will be identical to the original vaccines except it will contain genetic coding for two versions of the protein the virus uses to infect cells — the protein from the original vaccine and proteins from the BA.4 and BA.5 omicron subvariants.

And some scientists say health officials know enough about how vaccines work to start handling the COVID-19 vaccines like the flu vaccines, which are changed every year to try to match whatever strains are likely to be circulating but aren't routinely tested again every year.

"We're going to use all of these data that we've learned through not only from this vaccine but decades of viral immunology to say: 'The way to be nimble is that we're going to do those animal studies," says Deepta Bhattacharya, an immunobiologist at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Tucson. "We're really not going out too far on a limb here."

But, you are arguing that all of the data gathered about the previous variant's vaccine was not applicable and therefore useless.

What about the new variant makes this so.

According to your article, the only thing they are changing is the genetic coding used.

Is this what you are concerned about? If so, why?

Also, fun to point out that the article does not at all discuss concerns about the safety of the new vaccines. The objections raised are all about effectiveness or public perception of effectiveness.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515569#Comment_119515569

There was no leaving out of context to deceive.

I said "not everyone agrees that the mice data idea is a good idea"

Clearly I am acknowledging that there are others who think approval based on ditching clinical trials in humans in favour of data from mice is fine.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515602#Comment_119515602

Lol weird and misrepresentative way to put it. But yea. There's experts who don't think that there's an issue with it.

The experts who do have an issue with it, aren't concerned about the safety of it.

And since you're ignoring the question, you're now conceding you can't actually explain any rational reason to dismiss all of the data that shows the previous vaccines were safe and effective as irrelevant.

So another nonissue it seems. But I get the feeling that anti-vaxxers are still going to nitpick about it for months.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515651#Comment_119515651

The experts who do have an issue with it, aren't concerned about the safety of it.

Really? Can you quote them confirming that or are you just engaging in deliberate misrepresentation again?

 But I get the feeling that anti-vaxxers are still going to nitpick about it for months.

Well if the real world data turns out to be less flattering than that of the mice, I suspect yes it will be an issue for people who think that mice data is too low a bar.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515663#Comment_119515663

Where in the article do any of them say anything about safety?

Of the people they quote, they only refer to effectiveness, not safety.

If they are concerned about safety, why wouldn't they say so?

And no, it's not going to matter what the data says.

The data has shown for ages that the vaccines in use are safe and effective. Conspiracy theorists ignore that.

At what point will you accept that the vaccines are safe and effective?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515690#Comment_119515690

Effective at what? Preventing covid? I am some way off accepting that, but it is blindingly obvious that is not.

But as long as people are talking horseshit that it is effective at preventing covid, it is rational to consider that they could be talking horseshit that it is safe too.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515722#Comment_119515722

Questions dodged again.

No, not just at preventing covid.

But lets leave that nitpicking aside and focus on safety then.

What would it take for you to accept that the vaccines are safe?

What kind of study would satisfy you and why would it be worth doing when according to the article you posted, 500 people per day are daying of covid in the US?

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515750#Comment_119515750

As I have said consistently, the safety question can only be considered in the context of the in a risk benefit analysis that detailed exactly why those people died - i.e distinguishing between from Covid and with Covid; how many had serious health issues and what the age profile of those was.

The vaccines do very little do stop infection or transmission, they are only really effective at reducing severe disease and death, so the risk/benefit only really favours those at elevated risk of severe disease or death.

The relentless push to vaccinate and boost every man, woman and child regardless of age or state health is not justified by any study. As long as people are pretending otherwise, I will remain skeptical about all claims relating to the vaccines.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515807#Comment_119515807

Ok. So no evidence will actually convince you.

And also, lol. We're going back to the claim that the death toll from covid is being exaggerated... an oldie but a goodie.

Your article quotes an expert who states: "We have 500 people a day dying of coronavirus right now."

Maybe you shouldn't be reposting an article that contains such misinformation.

kernkraft500

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515432#Comment_119515432

so it isn't, excellent, science prevails

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515833#Comment_119515833

I quoted the article to make the point that not everybody agrees with using mice data for emergency use approval. Nothing to do with death data. You brought that up.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515807#Comment_119515807

"The vaccines do very little to stop infection or transmission"

You posted a study from Sweden which showed 15000 cases fewer in the vaccinated group than the unvaccinated control group.

So for 6 months post vaccination by mRNA vaccines, the vaccinated were significantly less likely to be infected.

Vaccine effectiveness of 96% (94 to 97; p<0·001) at 15–30 days and 59% (18 to 79; p=0·012) from day 181 onwards.

Your statement is false and directly contradicted by your own evidence. Your claim has no credibility.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515917#Comment_119515917

Yes, but the article you're citing is also claiming that 500 people per day are dying from covid.

You believe that this is false.

The article you posted contains false information according to yourself.

I brought up covid deaths to highlight the reason why the approval of the vaccines are being accelerated. I made the naive assumption that you agreed with the figure provided in your source. Foolish me.

Also, you keep misrepresenting things and claiming that they are only using the "mice data". You know this isn't true.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119515939#Comment_119515939

Yea, but that was like 2 weeks ago. Can't expect him to keep track of his position for that long...