Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

trent_r2021 wrote: »

Is it possible to get hold of medicines like Ivermectin in Ireland? For those of us who have safety concerns about the vaccine but want to be prepared to fight COVID with alternative treatments.

Shockingly, doctors can't prescribe this safe and effective drug.

It's readily available in online vetinary suppy stores as a paste for horses. I recently acquired a very small horse and got a cheap Irish brand of ivermectin oral horse paste called "Noromectin", just in case. The only active ingredient in it is ivermectin and the four inactive ingredients are fit for human consumption—which is good to know in case I, or one of my family, accidently consumed it.

https://mri.cts-mrp.eu/human/downloads/IR_V_0120_001_FinalSPC.pdf


The chap in this video deliberately took a similar horse paste, which obviously nobody recommends:

patnor1011 wrote: »

Honestly, your facebook anti-vax tirades are becoming old. Please be so kind and educate lancet and doctors who put out such garbage if you think you do have so superior knowledge.
And where exactly am I wrong when all I have said is that:
-we will have more data on safety from ongoing long term trials
-covid is generally very mild disease
-current vaccines only marginally improve severity of disease when contracted

What the lancet put out is perfectly fine and based on the data they gathered.

Your conclusion to come out and say this is absolute horse manure:

patnor1011 wrote: »

-current vaccines only marginally improve severity of disease when contracted

But as I said, go and get the data and prove me wrong.

patnor1011 wrote: »

Honestly, your facebook anti-vax tirades are becoming old. Please be so kind and educate lancet and doctors who put out such garbage if you think you do have so superior knowledge.
And where exactly am I wrong when all I have said is that:
-we will have more data on safety from ongoing long term trials
-covid is generally very mild disease
-current vaccines only marginally improve severity of disease when contracted

The last two are disingenuous in a calculated way.

Covid has killed over 3 million people. That's not "mild".
The vaccines result in a wide range of effects that you are purposefully leaving out.

You are again misrepresenting people because you can't address their points. Noone, including Astrofool accused the Lancet of "putting out garbage".
The point he was making was that you were mischaracterising and misrepresenting what was in the Lancet. You do this pretty constantly then throw out false accusations that others do it.

There is also your general insistance that there is some kind of conspiracy behind the vaccine or the virus.
And also your previous dishonest claims that you have now seemingly abandoned because they were a bit embarassing for you.

Crazy mirror wrote: »

I believe people under 40 should not take the vaccine if they are healthy. If they have vulnerabilities, then yes. Under 20s' i would be more worried taking the vaccine. If our hospitals are back under control then we should ease off vaccination for young people.

This being based on your PhD research?
Has it been published in a journal already?

Crazy mirror wrote: »

Yes the pHd of life? These vaccines are using experimental technology.(So we are told but who knows how long its been around). I find it strange that theories circulating early last year such as the lab theory; strange genome sequences in the virus and indirect funding from America are suddenly coming to the fore? I can't understand Dr Fauci's behaviour or the US CDC. Dr Fauci probably indirectly used a loophole to fund risky gain of function research in a lab with challenging safety procedures. Why deny it? So what if he used a loophole, i believe others have and did? The CDC it appeared decided to sit on confirmation that the vaccines were ready till after the US Election? The pollicisation of this drama is horrific when one stands back from it. The WHO appeared to bend over for China at least initially. If the lab theory is now getting traction, the next question was the virus deliberately released to make it appear as thou it was released there? There is a story that two Us Army doctors whom vaccinated or performed medical exams on athletes attending the Us Military Games in China in late 2019 were recently assassinated? Nothing but question, questions.............

Questions that conveniently lead you to doubt Covid and vaccines. Almost as if that's the goal all along.

patnor1011 wrote: »

Funny indeed.
With current uptake of vaccines and some time we will have more data and an idea about what long term effects may be since we are practically in trial phase anyway.
I am in no rush since current vaccines only marginally improve chance of reducing severity of a generally very mild disease.

From Lancet:
Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk
reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the
ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which
is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives
relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech,
94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya,
67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford
vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the
background risk of being infected and becoming ill
with COVID-19, which varies between populations and
over time. Although the RRR considers only participants
who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk
reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack
rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole
population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give
a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for
the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH,
1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for
the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.


Full link
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2666-5247%2821%2900069-0

Let's try to get to the bottom of this, as reasonably as possible (sorry, this got a bit long!!).

Those ARR numbers do look very low,
so it's understandable why people might conclude that the vaccines are hardly worth taking!!
But that would be a very wrong conclusion!!

See below for a graph of the actual results from Pfizer clinical trial data
(from here --> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7745181/)

In this trial of 43,548 people, half were given a placebo, and half the vaccine, on day 1 and again on day 21.
The graph below shows the percentage of each group (vaccinated vs placebo takers)
who developed symptomatic Covid-19 in the 100 or so days that followed.

As you can see, as time went on, a much higher percentage of placebo takers got symptomatic Covid vs the vaccinated.
The table tells us that 162 placebo takers got Covid, but only 8 of the vaccinated got Covid.

This is where they get the 95% effectiveness from.
You'd expect 162 of the vaccinated to get covid (same as the placebo takers)
but only 8 got it, which is (8/162) or 5%, so 95% were saved from getting it by the vaccine.

So how do we calculate the Absolute Risk Reduction? It's simply
the percentage of the placebo group who got Covid - the percentage of the vaccinated group who got covid.
From the graph this looks something like 2%

The ARR looks artificially low because in the 100 days only a small number of the trial participants would catch Covid.
If all participants were deliberately exposed to Covid (obviously this wouldn't be allowed)
then we would have a much higher ARR.

So, do you see why ARR can be misleading,
and why the RRR (of 95%) gives a much clearer idea of the vaccine protection?




See here for more details --> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7745181/figure/f1/?report=objectonly
This shows the numbers that progressed through the trial (lots dropped out, etc)

Also, see the following interesting excerpt from the trial report
"Two BNT162b2 (vaccine) recipients died (one from arteriosclerosis, one from cardiac arrest),
as did four placebo recipients (two from unknown causes, one from hemorrhagic stroke, and one from myocardial infarction).
No deaths were considered by the investigators to be related to the vaccine or placebo.
No Covid-19–associated deaths were observed."

PintOfView wrote: »

Can you tell me how you got the summary you included in that comment?

I've had a look at some of that data and the reported fatalities are from all sorts of things,
and many, perhaps most, from conditions that couldn't have developed since taking the vaccine.

If you look at my previous comment you'll also see that 6 people died during the Pfizer vaccine trial.
Two of the people who died were from the vaccinated cohort, and four from the placebo cohort.
Neither the vaccine nor the placebo were deemed to have contributed to these deaths!

Doesn't this put things in perspective?
ie. that people don't stop dying (from natural causes) just because they take a vaccine (or a placebo).

I'd like the take a closer look at the data you referenced (EudraVigilance)
but I can't find the summary, which includes deaths, like you showed.

Anti-vaxxers are continually using open source stats for any deaths or injuries that occur within the period that a vaccine is given in order to disingenuously scare-monger that the deaths/injuries are caused by the vaccine itself

We've had it numerous times in this thread, it gets explained, they ignore it. Big overlap between them and conspiracy theorists.

PintOfView wrote: »

It seems to be very easy for people to misunderstand these stats,
or to look at them out of context, and draw wrong conclusions.

Which is why the VAERS and EudraVigilance have big bolded warnings and disclaimers on the websites telling people that they can't use the data for those kind of conclusions.

And it's why conspiracy folks tend to leave out the links to the data. Either they weren't show it from the crank they're swallowing stuff from, or they know and they're avoiding it.

patnor1011 wrote: »

Funny indeed.
With current uptake of vaccines and some time we will have more data and an idea about what long term effects may be since we are practically in trial phase anyway.
I am in no rush since current vaccines only marginally improve chance of reducing severity of a generally very mild disease.

From Lancet:
Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk
reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the
ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which
is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives
relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech,
94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya,
67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford
vaccines. However, RRR should be seen against the
background risk of being infected and becoming ill
with COVID-19, which varies between populations and
over time. Although the RRR considers only participants
who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk
reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack
rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole
population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give
a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 1·3% for
the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH,
1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for
the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.


Full link
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2666-5247%2821%2900069-0

Just wondering if your failure to respond means that you saw from subsequent posts
that you were mistaken re the "marginal" effects of the vaccine ?
(preventing symptoms in 95% of people exposed to Covid is hardly marginal!)

You haven't debunked anything.

You made claims that you couldn't back up and then ran away when your lies were called out.

I know there's no point asking you to provide evidence for your new silly claim about PCR tests. You aren't going to even acknowledge it.

Your response tells me that you either didn't read the report on the Pfizer trial, or my response to you, or if you did then you didn't understand either! Another possibility is that you simply believe some website giving out bad information, and you don't trust yourself to be able to understand the actual facts!

Here is the summary again: 40,000 people enrolled on the Pfizer trial. These were split at random into two groups. One group of 20,000 was given the vaccine, the other group of 20,000 was given a placebo. Both groups were told to go home and carry on as normal.

After 100 days the results were gathered (remember the groups were random, so you'd expect roughly the same experience in both groups).

• Placebo group: 162 got symptomatic Covid, 9 got severe Covid
• Vaccinated group: 8 got symptomatic Covid, 1 got severe Covid

You don't need to be a statistician to understand that you would expect something like 160 people in the vaccinated group to get Covid, and 9 to get severe Covid. However, instead, only 8 got symptomatic Covid, and only 1 got severe Covid. Do you not think that's pretty clear? and it demonstrates the vaccine was very effective!

Does this not make sense to you? If not then how can you expect to look at any of the relevant information about Covid and draw any kind of sensible conclusions from it?

Your response looks to me like a total cop out, and is disappointing as I thought you might engage on a rational level!

However, going on your response, are you saying that the vaccine was 95% effective against the variant of the virus last autumn, but not against today's variant? And if that's what you're saying, what justification can you give for your views?

What are you trying to say?

The Pfizer vaccine has been shown to be 96% effective against hospitalization from COVID (UK Gov) and 93% in Israel (which is about the same as for the alpha variant), from your own link: "Vaccine effectiveness in preventing both infection and symptomatic disease fell to 64% since June 6, the Health Ministry said. At the same time the vaccine was 93% effective in preventing hospitalizations and serious illness from the coronavirus.