Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Covid vaccines - thread banned users in First Post

1169170172174175419

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,667 ✭✭✭whippet




  • Registered Users Posts: 17,704 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ?

    According to you, the vaccines required approval to "market" the vaccines? Approval from whom?

    Actually just link the sources for this, because it's getting bizarre



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,667 ✭✭✭whippet


    the poster obviously hasn't a clue how the licensing of pharmaceuticals works and how they are allow to market it. The license application comes from the clinical trials ... and if the poster even made a cursory look at the headline results of the original Pfizer trials the actual number of people who contracted and transmitted the virus when on the trail would know that there was never a mention of blocking the transmission.

    It's quite clear that the poster had something in his head about the failure of vaccines and no amount of facts or evidence will sway their incorrect opinion.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭hometruths


    The European Medicines Agency - which is a decentralised agency of the European Union (EU). It began operating in 1995. The Agency is responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines in the EU.

    If they grant approval to a medicine they literally issue "marketing authorisation" which is: The approval to market a medicine in one, several or all European Union Member States.

    You can read more about it here: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/glossary/marketing-authorisation

    Given the amount of time you spend on this thread correcting what you perceive to be other posters misunderstandings about vaccines, I am surprised you find this information bizarre.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol. You make the accusation that immediately do what you're accusing me of.

    Yes. The vaccines give you immunity. Never said different.

    You however are "fantasizing about what I meant."


    I don't give my opinion about medical matters. I point to the conclusions made by actual experts who use actual evidence to do so.


    Notice how you side step you initial misrepresenting of the VAERS data.

    Is that a sore spot for you or something?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,667 ✭✭✭whippet


    excellent !!! good work hometruths

    Now have a read of the actual authorisation from the EMA

    especially this section

    A very large clinical trial showed that Comirnaty, given as a two-dose regimen, was effective at preventing COVID-19 in people from 12 years of age.

    The trial involved around 44,000 people aged 16 and above in total. Half received the vaccine and half were given a dummy injection. People did not know whether they received the vaccine or the dummy injection.

    Efficacy in people aged 16 and above was calculated in over 36,000 participants (including people over 75 years of age) who had no sign of previous infection. The study showed a 95% reduction in the number of symptomatic COVID-19 cases in the people who received the vaccine (8 cases out of 18,198 got COVID-19 symptoms) compared with people who received a dummy injection (162 cases out of 18,325 got COVID-19 symptoms). This means that the vaccine demonstrated a 95% efficacy in the trial.

    The trial in people aged 16 years and older also showed around 95% efficacy in the participants at risk of severe COVID-19, including those with asthma, chronic lung disease, diabetes, high blood pressure or obesity.

    The trial was extended to include 2,260 children aged 12 to 15. It showed that the immune response to Comirnaty in this group was comparable to the immune response in the 16 to 25 age group (as measured by the level of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2). The efficacy of Comirnaty was calculated in close to 2,000 children from 12 to 15 who had no sign of previous infection. These received either the vaccine or a placebo (a dummy injection), without knowing which one they were given. Of the 1,005 children receiving the vaccine, none developed COVID-19 compared to 16 children out of the 978 who received the dummy injection. This means that, in this study, the vaccine was 100% effective at preventing COVID-19 (although the true rate could be between 75% and 100%).

    Another study showed that an additional dose of Comirnaty increased the ability to produce antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in organ transplant adult patients with severely weakened immune systems.

    Further data showed a rise in antibody levels when a booster dose was given after the second dose in people from 18 to 55 years old with a normal immune system.

    The company also presented supporting evidence from a study of a booster dose of Comirnaty in adolescents aged 16 and over, together with published literature and post-authorisation data plus real-world evidence from the use of booster doses in young people in Israel. Taking all available knowledge into account it was concluded that that the immune response to a booster dose in adolescents would be at least equal to that in adults.

    A study in children aged 5 to 11 showed that the immune response to Comirnaty given at a lower dose (10 micrograms) was comparable to that seen with the higher dose (30 micrograms) in 16 to 25 year olds (as measured by the level of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2). The efficacy of Comirnaty was calculated in almost 2,000 children from 5 to 11 years of age who had no sign of previous infection. These children received either the vaccine or a placebo. Of the 1,305 children receiving the vaccine, three developed COVID-19 compared with 16 out of the 663 children who received placebo. This means that, in this study, the vaccine was 90.7% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 (although the true rate could be between 67.7% and 98.3%).


    Now - tell me where this was marketed at a full on prevention of transmission ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,421 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    But it's not statistically zero. There is a higher risk vs. reward ratio for the COVID vaccines than for many other childhood vaccines (i.e. it's more beneficial for a child to be vaccinated against COVID vs. other childhood vaccines just so I'm clear).

    Statistically zero means a lot of zeros, people confuse statistically zero with % who have severe outcomes when infected, while low for children, this is more than made up for by the virulence of the virus.

    HepB has a relatively high mortality rate but the chances of contracting it are remote, hence the vaccine isn't part of the childhood program (people have to opt in and pay for it).

    Post edited by astrofool on


  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Now - tell me where this was marketed at a full on prevention of transmission ?

    Nowhere



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,704 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Great, thanks and where's the part where the EMA granted approval based on "on the specific basis to prevent symptomatic Covid cases"?

    Is it just that, or is it a range of factors? If it's a range of factors, what are they?



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Wait isn't this the same EMA were were secretly blocking the J&J vaccine according to anti vaxxers a good few pages ago...?


    I keep forgetting who is and who isn't supposed to be in this conspiracy.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,667 ✭✭✭whippet


    exactly - so the expectation that it would prevent transmission is based on falsehood. So your assertion only a short while ago is based on false information

    And the initial approval to market the vaccines was granted on the specific basis to prevent symptomatic Covid cases as opposed to reduce the effects of the virus and its transmission.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭hometruths


    whippet, you do realise I have consistently said the vaccine was not granted approval to prevent transmission?

    The bit of my post you quoted:

    And the initial approval to market the vaccines was granted on the specific basis to prevent symptomatic Covid cases as opposed to reduce the effects of the virus and its transmission.

    I said approval was granted to prevent symptomatic cases.

    You said it was granted to "reduce the effects of the virus and its transmission."



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,667 ✭✭✭whippet


    I now have no flucking idea what you are trying to say or not say .... so let me get this straight

    • you accept that the vaccines would never stop transmissions
    • you accept that they have reduced transmissions and serious illness and allowed our healthcare systems still function


    • you accept that the vaccines have been very positive in what they were designed to do?


    As from you last few posts and circling back I'm not sure what your issue with the vaccine is?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭hometruths


    It's just that.

    The approval that was specifically applied for and specifically granted was "Active immunisation to prevent COVID-19 disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus"

    You'll find that referenced in at the beginning and the end Section 1 - Background and 4 - Recommendations. As well as frequently in the rest of the 140 pages.

    https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭hometruths


    What I am trying to say is very clear from my initial post:

    When the vaccines were first rolled out the clear expectation was that the primary function was to prevent catching Covid.


    When it became abundantly clear that this was not working as intended, but they were having good effect in preventing serious illness and death, very few vaccine proponents acknowledged this. It was spun as if the primary function all along was to reduce serious illness and death, and anybody who thought they were taking the vaccine to prevent them getting Covid just didn't understand how vaccines worked.


    This is total and utter nonsense, and as far as I am concerned it undermines all subsequent claims about the vaccine efficacy and safety.

    Maybe you have got confused because the above has been over complicated in the last few pages by people trying to tell me what I think or what I misunderstand based on number of assertions that I didn't make. Apologies, but very little I can do about that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,667 ✭✭✭whippet


    you seemed to then conflate the confusion in some circles with what was part of the marketing of the drugs. As you know media like click bait and headlines that have a loose connection to the subject matter.

    So the fact that many believed that the vaccine was the silver bullet isn't the fault of the EMA / CDC / Drug companies - it is purely down to people's assumptions and failure to actually read beyond the headlines.

    If governments did believe that vaccines stopped transmissions you'd expect them to have lifted the mask mandates for vaccinated people - but the message was clear at the time that the risk was still there so masks were mandated as another level of protection.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Once again I'll remind you I said nothing about the vaccine stopping transmissions.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,704 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    to quote

    "The Applicant stated that the available data to date indicate that its vaccine was 95 percent effective and had no serious side effects, showing that the vaccine prevented mild and severe forms of COVID19."

    And this is what the Pfizer trials, with the variants at the time, showed.

    The virus mutates (adding this again for a reason)

    What is the conspiracy or the "thing" that is going on according to you?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭hometruths


    See my first post this morning, reposted above to remind whippet. That's the problem I have with the vaccines; a conspiracy might be a stretch, but the spin is definitely a "thing".



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Well this "thing" has already shifted several times.

    What do you believe this thing was?


    What about your fellows on this thread who have been lying and claiming many false things about the vaccine. Any comment on them at all? If not, why not?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭hometruths


    As I said the spin is a thing. If there is something you don't understand in what I posted let me know, and I'll try and clarify.

    Re others on this thread, I've seen many lies and falsehoods on here - true. But I don't really share your obsession with having to comment on every single post I disagree with and lump all those posters together as "Wrong".



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,704 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    What "spin" by who?

    1. Vaccines developed, show high efficacy
    2. Vaccine uptake encouraged
    3. Virus mutates
    4. Virus mutates more
    5. Vaccines have less impact (depending)
    6. Vaccine uptake encouraged

    Despite the variants, people are still encouraged to take vaccines because they dramatically reduce deaths from the virus.

    According to you that's "spin" because, let's see if we can get this straight, vaccine approval was gained through real trials with real results that emphasized real reduction in symptomatic Covid cases, and multiple mutations later, emphasis on encouraged vaccine uptake is based on the reduction of deaths/severe Covid. Correct?

    You're in an anti-vax thread on a conspiracy forum, and that's roughly your point?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,442 ✭✭✭bad2thebone


    Some people are now saying that there was monkey stuff in the vaccines, and it could be something to do with monkey pox.

    We'll be all turned into yetis soon and we'll all disappear.

    Astraseika has monkey stuff I read online.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,667 ✭✭✭whippet


    yep - spin alight - my head was spinning earlier trying to figure out what your problem was but it seems that even you don't know what the issue is.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    What spin are you referring to specifically?

    Spin by who and for what purpose?


    Cool. So which posters and which falsehoods have you seen?

    I keep pointing this out, because all of you anti-vaxxers keep claiming that the others don't represent you and such, yet not once have any of you ever challenged each other on those lies and mistruths.

    I think this shows a fundamental dishonesty in your position.

    If you're "just concerned about the vaccines" shouldn't you also want to make sure objections are actually based on truth?

    I think you and your mates are more than happy with lies and misinformation, just as long as vaccines and science in general are doubted and you guys get to be the ones smarter than actual experts.


    For example, this thread was started by patnor claiming that the VAERS data and similar indicated that the vaccines were more dangerous than was known.

    Any comment on this at all?



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yea, it's turned into a clone of the covid measures thread. We can't get anyone to actually explain what the conspiracy is and the thread is a dumping ground for vague and unfocused rage about things people don't understand.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭hometruths


    No. The spin is that the vaccines were not originally approved to prevent Covid cases but were in fact originally approved to reduce the severity of Covid cases.

    That is a falsehood.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭hometruths


    If you're looking for an example of a falsehood. See above. Any comment?



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,704 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yes. You are claiming something that isn't true. You are also dodging the questions being asked of you.

    That is a very typical tactic we see among people "just concerned about the vaccine."


    Could you please answer my questions now?

    Or failing that could you explain why you guys don't want to challenge each other directly even when you claim to disagree?



Advertisement